Democratization of Eastern Europe
Russia's Anti-Revolutionary Revolution and Putin’s (Pragmatic) Path

Based on Article 2 in Goldman
Steve Hanson, “The Dilemmas of Russia’s Anti-Revolutionary Revolution.”

And article by M. Steven Fish in Course Reader “Putin’s Path”
Why does Hanson call what most call Russia’s “transition” an anti-revolutionary revolution?

Answer: Revolution – yes, in terms of depth and scope of change – economic, political, social – it definitely qualifies as a revolution

 Yet this rev is avowedly anti-revolutionary

e.g. the rhetoric consciously employed by Yeltsin and Putin; e.g. Yeltsin’s stressing civic (rather than national) elements of Russianess and

Putin’s “pragmatic patriotism” (again rather than a revolutionary or more inflammatory version of nationalism)

also way the revolution has been institutionalized or consolidated largely through non-ideological parties such as the Unity party (and movements

– see Fish article on fourth transition)

 
Why the anti-revolutionary tack?

 People tired of revolutionary language, propaganda

 Want a return to “normal life”

Improvements under Putin, according to Hanson:

 Economic growth; paying of debt to IMF

 Reduced inflation

 Balanced budget

 Wage arrears and barter payments reduced

Reforms (proposed):

 New labor codes – less job security (relaxes hiring, firing)

 Reform of real estate laws for commercial land

Housing reforms – would remove remaining subsidies on rents, heat, electricity

Land code – would affect 20 mln living on collective farms; blocked by Communist and Agrarian parties.

How does Fish characterize Putin’s agenda?  What does he see as the most important “reforms” and what are their implications for Russian democracy?

1. Recentralization

Implications for democracy?

2. formulating a “practical ideology”

reminiscent of Hanson’s pragmatism here

based on nationalism, state nationalism, above ethnic identities*

recurring theme with Yeltsin as well

National community of citizens bound by allegiance to what institutions, symbols?

The presidency (and the constitution)

The army

The law ‘dictatorship of the law”

Uses this one to his own ends

3. Restoring State Control of Communication

4. Structuring Political Competition

new election laws, registration laws for parties; state financing for those that qualify

Article 2
Steve Hanson, “The Dilemmas of Russia’s Anti-Revolutionary Revolution.”

Why does Hanson call what most call Russia’s “transition” an anti-revolutionary revolution?

Answer: Revolution – yes, in terms of depth and scope of change – economic, political, social – it definitely qualifies as a revolution

Yet this rev is avowedly anti-revolutionary
e.g. the rhetoric consciously employed by Yeltsin and Putin; e.g. Yeltsin’s stressing civic (rather than national) elements of Russianess and Putin’s “pragmatic patriotism” (again rather than a revolutionary or more inflammatory version of nationalism)
also way the revolution has been institutionalized or consolidated largely through non-ideological parties such as the Unity party (and movements – see Fish article on fourth transition)

Why the anti-revolutionary tack?
 People tired of revolutionary language, propaganda
 Want a return to “normal life”

Improvements under Putin:
 Economic growth; paying of debt to IMF
 Reduced inflation
 Balanced budget
 Wage arrears and barter payments reduced
 
Reforms (proposed):
 New labor codes – less job security (relaxes hiring, firing)
 Reform of real estate laws for commercial land
Housing reforms – would remove remaining subsidies on rents, heat, electricity
Land code – would affect 20 mln living on collective farms; blocked by Communist and Agrarian parties.