What Russian Political History Can Teach Americans About the Perils of Anti-liberalism
Today, tensions between Russia and the West are as high as ever. Scholars continue to ponder why Russia has developed differently than the west, despite being adjacent to it. In America, we are blessed with a government built on civil discourse and respect for the rule of law. However, it is crucial not to take this for granted as we move forward into a new presidential administration. In examining Russia, a country where arbitrariness IS the rule of law, we see the effects of strong, charismatic, and chauvinistic figureheads easily consolidating control due to a lack of civil society and checks on absolute power.
Russia has never had an effective democracy, because the building blocks to make one have never existed. The Enlightenment and other pivotal moments in political history leading to the most consequential changes in Western government structures never came to fruition in Russia. The Romanov Dynasty ruled Russia autocratically for over 300 years, exercising absolute and uncontested control over every aspect of society. The Tsar, (a term that stems from the Latin 'caesar’) was referred to as ‘Царь-батюшка’ or ‘little father.’ He was seen as God’s representative on earth, ruling with divine authority. While Western Europe developed representative democracies, parliamentary institutions, public education, and independent media outlets, Russia remained a feudal state where authority was entirely top-down.
By the time of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the working class was quite small because the country had only just begun to seriously industrialize. A majority of the population were illiterate peasants, virtually disconnected from the outside world. Karl Marx wrote in Germany during the height of free market capitalism. He proposed that the natural progression of history saw a society shifting from feudalism to capitalism, and once the working class realized their exploitation (a concept Marx referred to as ‘class consciousness’) socialism would take root and result in the eventual withering away of the state. Russia didn’t go through the necessary stages of industrialized capitalism that would allow for socialism to properly take root. Instead, while Western European nations were largely liberal democracies with capitalist economies, in 1917 Russia was still a feudal state with peasants tied to the land on which they worked. Lenin saw the Bolsheviks as the ‘vanguard party,’ or a group of educated elites that would lead both workers and peasants into a socialist utopia. However, the idea of the ‘vanguard party’ is a serious contradiction to the core tenets of Marxism. Marx posited that Russia would be unlikely to experience a socialist revolution because for a society to do so, the proletariat (working class) would have to launch a general uprising. Despite the fact that there was a series of peasant and worker uprisings spurred by years of war and starvation, the proletariat wasn’t looking for a fundamental societal shift or even a change in government, they simply wanted to eat. The vanguard party consisted of educated, literate Marxists who had ambitious political goals. The problem with the vanguard party is that once this small group of elites seized power, they never relinquished it. In the panic caused by years of war and political chaos, the Bolsheviks were able to take advantage of a power vacuum and form a government equally as authoritarian as that of the Tsars.
A similar scenario to that of the 1917 Russian Revolution took place following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Following the collapse, there was serious hope in the west that Russia could develop a modern liberal democracy. Western leaders such as Bill Clinton and John Major took serious interest in integrating Russia into the global economic order, and did so by flushing her economy with cash. However, this cash was snatched up by oligarchs who became fabulously wealthy and powerful. Inflation wrecked the Russian economy for years, creating a parallel socioeconomic situation to that of the Tsarist era, where a small group of elites held all of the wealth and the majority of the population lived in abject poverty. This horrible economic situation created a power vacuum which Vladimir Putin eagerly took advantage of. A destitute population nostalgic for the days when they lived in the global superpower that was the Soviet Union sought stability and strong leadership, which is exactly what Putin offered. Therefore, Putin’s promise of a return to glory for Russia became very popular, allowing him to become the uncontested dictator he is today.
American society today is extremely divided, with many feeling scared, anxious and uncomfortable, similar to how Russians felt in both 1917 and in the 1990’s. As we have seen in Russian political history, this kind of instability sows the seeds for strong, fearmongering, populist figureheads to seize power. It is more important than ever to recognize and fight for the rule of law so that this doesn’t happen in our country. While we have civil society and tools to prevent authoritarianism from taking root, it is important to be vigilant of the loopholes politicians can find to consolidate control and eliminate checks on their power. When we are fearful, it is easy to trust a leader who promises to fix all of our problems. It is easy to blame society's ills on marginalized groups, just like Putin has done with Jews, homosexuals, and other ethnic minorities. Obviously, the easy way is not the best way. We need to fight for our democracy, and remember the liberal enlightened values espoused in our constitution. Russian history shows us what can happen to a society when a populist leader’s power and cult of personality goes unchecked, and as we move through these tumultuous times, it is important that we heed the lessons of Russian history so that similar scenarios don’t come to fruition in our country.