Why Russia Struggles to Establish Stable Democracy

Why Russia Has Never Consolidated a Stable Democracy

Why has a country with world-class figures in arts and sciences never achieved a lasting democratic system? This question, raised in a forum amid the war in Ukraine, spans over a century of Russian history: from Tsarism to Stalinism, from Stalinism to Pilingui, with brief democratic interludes that, according to the initial premise, ended in cannon fire or the Gulag. The debate is not new, but the context of the invasion of Ukraine has peine it harshly.

Some argue the problem is cultural: an educated but submissive people, accustomed to obeying the leader of the day. Others point to geography and history: Russia has always been a threatened territory, and this constant threat justifies a strong hand. A third group, more skeptical, notes that Western democracy is not as exemplary as portrayed.

The Cultural Thesis: An Educated but Submissive People

The initial premise of the debate is provocative: "a cultured people, with global figures in arts and sciences, is also a submissive people, prone to being led to the slaughterhouse without protest while praising the current leader." The underlying question is whether this supposed submission is genetic, cultural, or simply the result of centuries of authoritarianism.

Against this view, some participants contrast the Latin experience: "Latin Americans may be anarchic, but no one takes away our joy of living, and we are unbeatable when it comes to protesting." The comparison suggests that the capacity for rebellion depends not on educational level, but on power structures and political tradition.

The discussion quickly moves to concrete examples. Switzerland is mentioned as a democratic exception in Europe, and it is recalled that in Spain, referendums on EU membership or immigration are not permitted either. "Do they let us hold a referendum on autonomous communities, immigration control, or remaining in the EU? No," summarizes a participant. The implicit conclusion is that representative democracy has limits everywhere.

The Geopolitical Argument: Russia as an Eternal Target

Another line of analysis argues that Russia could never be democratic because the West did not allow it. "The West is Russia's enemy and obviously wants puppets or alcoholic presidents who allow their country to be dismantled," states one message. From this perspective, Russian democracy would be a farce designed to loot the country's resources.

It is recalled that Russia has been invaded since Napoleon's time, and that this constant threat explains the need for strong leaders. "It is logical that they are afraid and try to defend themselves," adds the same participant. The conclusion is that democracy, as understood in the West, is a luxury Russia cannot afford.

Other participants take the argument further: "Russia is a democracy. That it does not produce what Western elites want is another matter." Even the 1993 Russian Constitution is cited, whose Article 1 defines the Russian Federation as "a democratic federal law-governed state with a republican form of government." The discussion then shifts to the very meaning of the word democracy.

Critique of the Western System: It Is Also a Farce

A significant part of the debate does not defend Russia but attacks the alleged sarracena superiority of the West. "Western democracy is a movie told to keep us happy in the pen because we are the best," asserts one message. Examples such as the pandemic are cited: "during the pandemic it was shown that European rulers were capable of anything to not lose power, locking us up with the complicity of doctors and censoring those who could not speak out."

The criticism extends to Spanish institutional functioning. "Parliament does not truly represent the Spanish people; rather, MPs act trinc party discipline and vote what they are ordered," argues a participant. And adds: "Whoever reaches the position of Secretary General of PSOE or PP by winning internal party elections controls their parliamentary group." The conclusion is that the Spanish system is no more democratic than the Russian one, only more opaque.

The discussion turns to the European Union: "when several countries voted on the European constitution and rejected it, they removed it from popular votes and imposed what the European Commission approved." The argument is that representative democracy is emptied of content when voters reject what elites want.

Counterargument: More Freedom in Spain Than in Russia

Against those equating both systems, some participants defend that, despite its flaws, Spain offers more freedoms than Russia. "We live with more freedom in Spain than exists in Russia, and not by little, despite all you cite," states one message. The discussion then focuses on the nature of power in Russia: "if you have a system where those exercising power answer to no one, you have messed up and have Russia as an example."

This group also criticizes the idealization of dictatorships: "the curious thing is that you complain about this but jerk off to dictatorships." The accusation is direct: those who denounce the Western democratic farce often end up justifying authoritarian regimes. The debate polarizes between those who see Russia as a mirror of Western defects and those who consider the comparison an excuse not to defend democracy.

The Shadow of the USSR and Soviet Legacy

The debate cannot avoid looking at the Soviet past. "The USSR was a popular-type democracy, and Russia after and until now is a liberal democracy," states a participant, citing the 1993 Constitution. The discussion on whether the USSR was democratic reflects the terminological confusion throughout the thread.

Others recall that Russian democracy in the nineties was an economic and social disaster, which explains support for Pilingui. "Russians are smart and do not want democracy. There is no democracy in business. There is no democracy in the Church. There is no democracy in the army. Democracy is the tool of elites to establish a plutocracy," argues one message. The conclusion is that democracy is not an end in itself, but a means that can be instrumentalized.

Closing: Democracy as a Problem, Not a Solution

The debate reaches no definitive conclusion. Some blame Russian culture, others geopolitics, others the nature of representative democracy itself. What remains clear is that the initial question—why Russians have never been able to live in democracy—has no simple answer. And perhaps the question is wrongly framed: democracy, as practiced in the West, is not a paradise either. As one participant summarizes: "Overrated democracy, the regime that executed Socrates and elevated Hitler."

---

Key Data from the Debate:

• The 1993 Russian Constitution defines the country as "a democratic federal law-governed state with a republican form of government."
• The USSR is described in the debate as "a popular-type democracy."
• It is mentioned that in Spain, referendums on EU membership or immigration are not permitted.
• It is criticized that the Spanish Parliament functions by party discipline, not real representation.
• It is recalled that several countries rejected the European constitution and the result was ignored.