I have read with fascination Michael McFaul's book From Cold War to Hot Peace. McFaul is a political scientist who holds prestigious positions at Stanford University. He was US ambassador to Russia for two years under President Obama. He was the author of what he calls "the Reset," an effort by the Obama Administration to improve relations with Russia when Dmitrii Medvedev was President of that country. I have seen McFaul on television several times. He appears often on MSNBC. He is a whipping boy for Vladimir Putin, who has banned him from entering Russia. McFaul has spent much of his life studying, living, and working in Russia. His book is an intriguing account mostly of his time in the Obama Administration as chief advisor on all matters Russian and as ambassador to Russia. On TV and in his book he strikes me as overly optimistic and naïve about Russia and its prospects for developing a democratic political system. He insists that such a development is possible, though he admits that his efforts to push Russia in that direction and to improve US Russian relations are a failure, as he says "for now." I want here to reflect on McFaul's belief in positive possibilities for Russia's development in light of my training and experience as a Russian historian. I like and respect McFaul, but I disagree with him about how likely it is that Russia will become a democratic country in the foreseeable or even the distant future. Here's why.
McFaul's basic mistake is that he underestimates the power of Russian history. He thinks Russia is more European than it actually is. One undeniable truth of Russian history is that Russia has no meaningful history of democracy. None. Yes, after the 1905 revolution the tsar had to institute some very modest reforms to the autocratic system of government that Russia had had for centuries by that time. There was a Duma, that is, a sort of rudimentary parliament, but it had no real power. Before that Tsar Alexander II had introduced some significant reforms. In the 1860s he created the zemstvo system of local representative bodies of the landowners. He emancipated the serfs, more or less. He reformed the legal system and introduced the jury into Russian law. Nonetheless, power remained wholly in the hands of the autocrat, the tsar.
Russian autocracy developed out of the monarchical system of the principality of Moscow, a medieval system that had no hint of democracy whatsoever. That system arose in an Asiatic setting in opposition to the domination of the Mongols, hardly themselves models of democratic rule. Russia did not experience the developments in western Europe that led to modern democratic systems. There was no Protestant Reformation. The Enlightenment had only the most superficial effect on the upper classes and never seriously threatened the autocratic power of the monarch. The Russian Orthodox Church was never a center of opposition to state power nor an alternative center of power the way the Roman Catholic Church sometimes was in the West. There is nothing like the Magna Carta anywhere in Russian history. Aristocratic opposition to the unlimited power of the monarch never took root the way it did in England. Right up to the Bolshevik coup in 1917 Russia remained a largely agrarian nation. There was some industrialization to be sure, but there was nothing like the middle class that came to dominate politics in the West. Sure, there was a class known as the "intelligentsia," a Russian word that found its way into English. Most of those people were enamored of Western thought and culture. Even the thought of staunch conservatives like Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the man on whom I wrote my PhD dissertation, was grounded in western thinking. Yet that layer of western culture was never more than a thin veneer on top of a largely Asiatic society, one that consisted of autocratic rule at the top and mostly illiterate peasants at the bottom.
Then come the Soviets. First Lenin and then Stalin created a totalitarian system that was the polar opposite of democracy, all the while claiming to be the most democratic system in the world. Under Stalin the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ruled through lies, oppression, and terror. The only thing remotely like economic capitalism that the Soviets tolerated were the small private garden plots of the peasants living and working on collective farms. No other private ownership of the means of production was permitted. The Soviet Communists did everything they could to squelch independent thought, and under Stalin anyone who voiced any criticism outside the very narrow permitted bounds got a bullet in the back of the head or a sentence to the Gulag that few survived. True, Communist rule in Russia lasted only 74 years, but it was so brutal, so totalitarian, that nothing remotely like democracy could even begin to take hold.
Then there is another defining characteristic of Russian history. Throughout its history Russia has endured foreign invasion after foreign invasion in a way no western countries ever has. The United States has certainly experienced nothing remotely like it. The first rulers of what became Russia were actually Norsemen, the so-called Varangians of Kievan Rus. The domination of the Russian lands by Kiev ended with the invasion of the Mongols from the East. After them came invasions by, at least, the Swedes, Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, and French. Napoleons invasion of Russia in 1812 is a defining event in Russian history and culture. See Tolstoy's War and Peace for evidence for that assertion.
Even more traumatic was the Nazi invasion of 1941. The extent of the suffering of the Russian and other Soviet people at the hands of the Nazis is almost incomprehensible in its scope. In the Siege of Leningrad alone the death toll totaled something like three times the number of all American deaths in World War II. At the Battle of Stalingrad the average lifespan of a soldier sent to that front was something like 24 hours. The Soviet Union lost something like 20 million people in that war, some 40 times the number we lost. The entire country, or most of it, west of the Urals was devastated. When I was first in the Soviet Union in the summer of 1968, only 23 years after the end of the war, Russians asked me many times if both of my parents were alive. They were surprised when I answered yes. Certainly the Soviet Communists used the war as an excuse for the country's poor economic performance after the war, but that reality doesn't change the truth of just how awful what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War was.
As a consequence of Russia's lack of any history of democracy and of the repeated invasions of the country by foreign powers most Russians value security and order over democratic freedom. That popular preference may be hard for many Americans to understand, but that's because so few Americans understand either the power of history generally or the power of Russian history in particular. Western notions such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, due process, and open, fair democratic elections are simply foreign to most Russians. Not all Russians to be sure. McFaul mentions the many Russians he has known who value democracy and want Russia to develop into a democratic nation. Of course there are such Russians. I knew a couple of them myself in years past. There has been a layer of Russians enamored of the West and its values for centuries. Nonetheless, those Russians remain a minority, a fact we see reflected in the majority of Russians who keep voting for Vladimir Putin for president. Given Russia's history of repeated and often brutal foreign invasions, it is not surprising that a majority of Russians prefer a leader who promises security to one who promises democracy.
Putin is an authoritarian ruler to be sure. He suppresses his political opponents. He rigs the elections at least to some extent (although a majority of Russians do vote for him). He has no qualms about killing people he sees as a threat to his rule even if they have left the country and live abroad. He has created an economic system controlled by the state almost as much as the Soviet economic system was. Corruption is rampant, and Putin and his cronies are among its main beneficiaries. It is not hard to dislike Vladimir Putin and the way he rules Russia, Donald Trump's infatuation with him to the contrary notwithstanding. But we make a big mistake if we view Putin only through western eyes. He is not a western man. Russia is not a western nation. It is unrealistic to expect either of them to be western. It is unrealistic to expect Russia to look like a western country any time soon. Perhaps ever.
So Ambassador McFaul, I respect your service to our country. I envy you're elevated position in academia. I certainly envy you your audience, but I respectfully disagree with your view of Russia. That view seems overly optimistic and hopeful to me. I don't expect Russia to become like the West. I expect Russia to remain Russia. I am convinced that Russian history will lead in no other direction. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
McFaul's basic mistake is that he underestimates the power of Russian history. He thinks Russia is more European than it actually is. One undeniable truth of Russian history is that Russia has no meaningful history of democracy. None. Yes, after the 1905 revolution the tsar had to institute some very modest reforms to the autocratic system of government that Russia had had for centuries by that time. There was a Duma, that is, a sort of rudimentary parliament, but it had no real power. Before that Tsar Alexander II had introduced some significant reforms. In the 1860s he created the zemstvo system of local representative bodies of the landowners. He emancipated the serfs, more or less. He reformed the legal system and introduced the jury into Russian law. Nonetheless, power remained wholly in the hands of the autocrat, the tsar.
Russian autocracy developed out of the monarchical system of the principality of Moscow, a medieval system that had no hint of democracy whatsoever. That system arose in an Asiatic setting in opposition to the domination of the Mongols, hardly themselves models of democratic rule. Russia did not experience the developments in western Europe that led to modern democratic systems. There was no Protestant Reformation. The Enlightenment had only the most superficial effect on the upper classes and never seriously threatened the autocratic power of the monarch. The Russian Orthodox Church was never a center of opposition to state power nor an alternative center of power the way the Roman Catholic Church sometimes was in the West. There is nothing like the Magna Carta anywhere in Russian history. Aristocratic opposition to the unlimited power of the monarch never took root the way it did in England. Right up to the Bolshevik coup in 1917 Russia remained a largely agrarian nation. There was some industrialization to be sure, but there was nothing like the middle class that came to dominate politics in the West. Sure, there was a class known as the "intelligentsia," a Russian word that found its way into English. Most of those people were enamored of Western thought and culture. Even the thought of staunch conservatives like Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the man on whom I wrote my PhD dissertation, was grounded in western thinking. Yet that layer of western culture was never more than a thin veneer on top of a largely Asiatic society, one that consisted of autocratic rule at the top and mostly illiterate peasants at the bottom.
Then come the Soviets. First Lenin and then Stalin created a totalitarian system that was the polar opposite of democracy, all the while claiming to be the most democratic system in the world. Under Stalin the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ruled through lies, oppression, and terror. The only thing remotely like economic capitalism that the Soviets tolerated were the small private garden plots of the peasants living and working on collective farms. No other private ownership of the means of production was permitted. The Soviet Communists did everything they could to squelch independent thought, and under Stalin anyone who voiced any criticism outside the very narrow permitted bounds got a bullet in the back of the head or a sentence to the Gulag that few survived. True, Communist rule in Russia lasted only 74 years, but it was so brutal, so totalitarian, that nothing remotely like democracy could even begin to take hold.
Then there is another defining characteristic of Russian history. Throughout its history Russia has endured foreign invasion after foreign invasion in a way no western countries ever has. The United States has certainly experienced nothing remotely like it. The first rulers of what became Russia were actually Norsemen, the so-called Varangians of Kievan Rus. The domination of the Russian lands by Kiev ended with the invasion of the Mongols from the East. After them came invasions by, at least, the Swedes, Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, and French. Napoleons invasion of Russia in 1812 is a defining event in Russian history and culture. See Tolstoy's War and Peace for evidence for that assertion.
Even more traumatic was the Nazi invasion of 1941. The extent of the suffering of the Russian and other Soviet people at the hands of the Nazis is almost incomprehensible in its scope. In the Siege of Leningrad alone the death toll totaled something like three times the number of all American deaths in World War II. At the Battle of Stalingrad the average lifespan of a soldier sent to that front was something like 24 hours. The Soviet Union lost something like 20 million people in that war, some 40 times the number we lost. The entire country, or most of it, west of the Urals was devastated. When I was first in the Soviet Union in the summer of 1968, only 23 years after the end of the war, Russians asked me many times if both of my parents were alive. They were surprised when I answered yes. Certainly the Soviet Communists used the war as an excuse for the country's poor economic performance after the war, but that reality doesn't change the truth of just how awful what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War was.
As a consequence of Russia's lack of any history of democracy and of the repeated invasions of the country by foreign powers most Russians value security and order over democratic freedom. That popular preference may be hard for many Americans to understand, but that's because so few Americans understand either the power of history generally or the power of Russian history in particular. Western notions such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, due process, and open, fair democratic elections are simply foreign to most Russians. Not all Russians to be sure. McFaul mentions the many Russians he has known who value democracy and want Russia to develop into a democratic nation. Of course there are such Russians. I knew a couple of them myself in years past. There has been a layer of Russians enamored of the West and its values for centuries. Nonetheless, those Russians remain a minority, a fact we see reflected in the majority of Russians who keep voting for Vladimir Putin for president. Given Russia's history of repeated and often brutal foreign invasions, it is not surprising that a majority of Russians prefer a leader who promises security to one who promises democracy.
Putin is an authoritarian ruler to be sure. He suppresses his political opponents. He rigs the elections at least to some extent (although a majority of Russians do vote for him). He has no qualms about killing people he sees as a threat to his rule even if they have left the country and live abroad. He has created an economic system controlled by the state almost as much as the Soviet economic system was. Corruption is rampant, and Putin and his cronies are among its main beneficiaries. It is not hard to dislike Vladimir Putin and the way he rules Russia, Donald Trump's infatuation with him to the contrary notwithstanding. But we make a big mistake if we view Putin only through western eyes. He is not a western man. Russia is not a western nation. It is unrealistic to expect either of them to be western. It is unrealistic to expect Russia to look like a western country any time soon. Perhaps ever.
So Ambassador McFaul, I respect your service to our country. I envy you're elevated position in academia. I certainly envy you your audience, but I respectfully disagree with your view of Russia. That view seems overly optimistic and hopeful to me. I don't expect Russia to become like the West. I expect Russia to remain Russia. I am convinced that Russian history will lead in no other direction. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment