Elites And Political Power In The Ussr PDF Download

Assessments of Russia's future possess a lamentable tendency to oscillate between enthusiastic optimism about the development of free market democracy or brooding pessimism concerning the vitality of Russia's absolutist heritage, without providing many durable insights. 1 The goal of this essay is to undertake a more penetrating analysis of a paradox of state power that lies at the heart of future Russian politics. One of the distinguishing features of post-Soviet transition unquestionably has been the political elite's remarkable autonomy of power: as the institutional infrastructure of the old regime collapsed, political elites concentrated on economic reform that later came to resemble economic plunder, leaving an institutional void in many areas of government policy. Russia became, in the words of Robert Jackson, a "quasi-state": endowed with juridical statehood, yet lacking the political will, institutional capacity, and organized authority to protect human rights and provide socioeconomic welfare. 2 The debacle in Chechnya added the shocking realization of the degeneration of Russian military capacity. In contrast to "normal" societies where political power is circumscribed by an institutional framework and the rule of law, the void of the transformation period provided Russian elites a rare opportunity to exercise their power unfettered by such constraints. The result has been to produce a "weak" Russian state in which institutional development occurs only at the whim of the political elite. An oligarchic capitalism has taken hold in Moscow, yet the political calculus remains paramount, state institutions underdeveloped, and the current elite-reformist credentials notwithstanding-lives beyond the reach of the law. This is a curious and perplexing outcome, for Russia has managed not only to endure, but to score some very important reform victories on the path to transformation. How can one explain the apparent paradox of a "weak" state undertaking policies more durable political systems could not implement? Viewed from a comparative perspective, the paradox disappears as Russia's experience bears striking similarities to other developing societies. In essence, the crises of governance and Russian elites' "reform" responses reflect the pattern of political development-or maldevelopment- present in many African states. In the absence of normal state building, Russia's political elites, like their African counterparts, undertook to construct a parallel political authority-a shadow state 3-whose defining characteristic is a corrupt fusion between government and private sector elites that stunts institutional development, survives through predation on productive processes in society, and compels the majority of the population to withdraw from the sphere of legitimate commerce and political activity. The recent attention Russian elites and international financial institutions have directed toward building state capacity has made little progress in the Russian case; nor should this be expected given the current elite's philosophy of governance. According to First Deputy Prime Minister Anatolii Chubais,4 "consolidation of power means establishing a tough dictatorship within the systems of state power . . . . To establish democracy in society requires a dictatorship within the state."5 Parallel to this haunting echo of Leninist zeal has been an approach to budget reform that is a polar opposite of the vision encouraged by the World Bank in its 1997 World Development Report. While the Bank has urged the creation of transparent state institutions that provide, among other things, investment in basic social services and infrastructure, and a comprehensive social safety net, Yeltsin, Chubais, and Boris Nemtsov have lobbied for a 1997 budget that inflicts maximum damage on the Russian government's ability to pursue these objectives.