Alexander's remark is typical of what one hears from many Russians: As there is no real democracy anyway, at least not in the West, why bother about possible democratic deficiencies in Russia?
The principal issue seems to be here that, in the West, these subjects
are mostly discussed from the point of view of democratic theory whereas many Russians discuss them, paradoxically, from the point of view of democratic utopia: As there is no and never was true democracy (and, one coud add: never will be), there is not that much difference between Britain and Russia, the US and China, Switzerland and North Korea...
This is a fascinating combination of democratic maximalism with political
machiavellianism.
The one argument that speaks against such seeming political pragmatism is that almost all of the world's economically and socially more successful
countries are those that have been or/and are trying to be as democratic as possible. Granted, the various more or less democratic countries do that with rather varying success. Still, many Western and non-Western countries would, at least, seem to be trying. Though Russia is today trying many things, being more democratic is not among Moscow's current policy priorities.
The latter makes many foreigners unhappy and some Westerners, like for example those worrying about the future of Strasbourg's European Court for Human Rights, angry. However, in the end, the most unhappy people will be not any Western "russophobes", but the Russians themselves. As, one would think, they should know from the experience of 1917 and 1991, authoritarian polities constitute unreliable arrangements for organizing modern nations. These regimes, sooner or later, collapse. And their nations have to pay the bill.
|