How does Russia’s democracy compare to the U.S. democracy? The U.S. government is a true democracy out of fear of a monarchy. On the other hand, Russia’s government changed repeatedly for the past thousand years but maintained its nationalistic view. The Russian government began with the ruling of imperialistic Tsars. After World War I led to the communist era, which then made a major shift to a liberal economy. Today, Vladimir Putin, president of the world’s largest country, holds power. People blame Putin’s government for “the growth of ultra-nationalism in Russia” (Davydoff para 1). Many believe that Russia is moving towards a democratic government, while others believe Russia is moving farther away from a democracy and closer to a dictatorship.
…show more content…
Opposition parties can exist—but only within certain bounds. Elections are held—but their results are a foregone conclusion and the power-holders chosen in Kremlin corridors long before the polls open. There is no real political debate in the public media, and no broader culture of democracy to foster diversity of opinion. In many ways the problem is not the growing power of the Putin state (it could be argued that it is not as strong as it appears), but the chronic weakness of civil society. (para 6).
The quote accurately explains the government of Russia, without explaining the flaws the government has with relationship to its people “The Russian government undermines civil rights” (Dzhibladze). “The government has embarked on this strategy to quell dissent and reinforce its own dominance” which goes back to authoritarianism (para 1). This viewpoint expresses what the government is doing wrong with respect to its citizens. One should approach this viewpoint with caution because the author is a founder and president of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights in Moscow, so, the critic does possess favoritism to one side. “In a very short space of time indeed [between June and July 2012] three fundamental freedoms—of assembly, association and speech—were subjected to ferocious legal restriction” (para 2). “These three fundamental rights—speech, assembly and association—are defined in international law as 'vital freedoms', serving as the basis for a democratic society” (para 3) but many find it hard to express and voice their opinions with fear that the government will beat them or arrest them. In an opposer's article they
Opposition parties can exist—but only within certain bounds. Elections are held—but their results are a foregone conclusion and the power-holders chosen in Kremlin corridors long before the polls open. There is no real political debate in the public media, and no broader culture of democracy to foster diversity of opinion. In many ways the problem is not the growing power of the Putin state (it could be argued that it is not as strong as it appears), but the chronic weakness of civil society. (para 6).
The quote accurately explains the government of Russia, without explaining the flaws the government has with relationship to its people “The Russian government undermines civil rights” (Dzhibladze). “The government has embarked on this strategy to quell dissent and reinforce its own dominance” which goes back to authoritarianism (para 1). This viewpoint expresses what the government is doing wrong with respect to its citizens. One should approach this viewpoint with caution because the author is a founder and president of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights in Moscow, so, the critic does possess favoritism to one side. “In a very short space of time indeed [between June and July 2012] three fundamental freedoms—of assembly, association and speech—were subjected to ferocious legal restriction” (para 2). “These three fundamental rights—speech, assembly and association—are defined in international law as 'vital freedoms', serving as the basis for a democratic society” (para 3) but many find it hard to express and voice their opinions with fear that the government will beat them or arrest them. In an opposer's article they