• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Were the Russian Presidential elections of 1996 and 2000 democratic?

Extracts from this document...


Were the Russian Presidential elections of 1996 and 2000 democratic? Introduction The process of democratisation is central in assessing how Russia is modernising after the fall of the communist regime. Elections are pivotal to how democratic a state is, yet elections had been held in Russia during Stalin's reign and beyond. However, these were not democratic in the true sense; with only one candidate, clearly they were not competitive. As Dahl observed, 'the development of a political system that allows for opposition, rivalry, or competition between a government and its opposition is an important aspect of democratization' (Dahl, 1971, p1). In my essay I shall be assessing events of the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections and analysing how democratic these elections were. Huntington cited in Hughes' study asserted elections to be 'the essence of democracy, a vehicle of democratisation as well as the goal' (Hughes, 2000, p28). 1996 Election In the 1996 election there were a variety of candidates competing for the presidency, as Dahl stipulates is essential for democracy. Candidates needed one million signatures of support, with not more than 7% of signatures from one region. This safeguard short listed an original line-up of 78 applicants down to eleven. ...read more.


Whilst this is not undemocratic, it is an unfair advantage that Yeltsin held. In the instance that elections had been cancelled, it would have been a clear sign that democracy wasn't working. Yavlinsky is quoted as saying 'When you hear talk of postponing elections in Russia, that can mean postponing them for centuries' (White, 1997a, p244). Returning to a previous point, the signature forging episode does exemplify that undemocratic practices were occurring. The 1996 presidential elections were certainly on the path of democracy, however they were unfair and unbalanced in respect to the advantages that Yeltsin had in being the President. As observed by Stephen White, 'media observers saw the Yeltsin campaign as not living up to West European standards of fairness' (White, 1997a, p267). 2000 Election Having served two terms as Russian President, Yeltsin was ineligible to be a candidate in 2000. Putin emerged as favourite, having a base as Prime Minister and acting President due to Yeltsin's ill health. The print media did criticise Putin, so the democratic practices of the a free press was obvious. International spectators assessed the election and stated 'The European Union felt able to declare that competitive and pluralistic elections had become part of the political culture in Russia; the British Foreign Office congratulated the Russian authorities on the free and fair exercise they had conducted' (White, 2000, p317). ...read more.


However they were unfair in that Yeltsin and Putin already had a grasp of power and were able to use this to consolidate their victories. In electing Yeltsin as leader of Russia, it was evident he 'represented a clear choice in favour of reform and democracy, even if the presidency was not always true to such values himself' (White, 1997c, p57). There was unfair advantages heeded to both Yeltsin and Putin, and reciprocally this disadvantaged the other candidates. I am not sure that Dahl or Huntingdon would declare the elections as democracy. White asserted Russia was a 'very partial democracy: parliament had little control over the government, political parties were weak and government at a local level was sometimes based upon a criminalised Mafia' (White, 1997b, 439). The elections were conducted within the realms of a democratic liberal state, however we must consider the new constitution that substantially aided the current President. Clearly Russia is in the process of democratisation, but it cannot be regarded as a pure democracy. Over a period of time, we will be able to judge how and to what success Russia is democratising. It is a process, and the Soviet system cannot be immediately supplanted by a liberal democracy. The democratic but unequal elections of 1996 and 2000 illustrate this. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Indonesia: Transition and Prospects for Democracy

    Government liberalization and loss of power and authority 2. Opposition expands support, hoping to bring down the government 3. Forceful suppression and containment of opposition power by government 4. Government and opposition leaders explore negotiation and compromise Standpatters in government During the transition period (or reformasi), the following standpatters were found in government: the military, the hegemonic party Golkar, and Suharto himself.

  2. Have village elections democratized rural China?

    village elections, it is vital to review the electoral process in place. Villagers in rural China now directly nominate and vote for members on the committees, they are also involved in practical administrative issues and candidates standing for election to committees are under no obligation to be members of the

  1. Does democracy bring peace?

    on September 11th 2001, the United States of America was attacked by the Al-Qaueda terrorist network, with the loss of more than 3,000 American lives. Clearly loss of life on that scale ca, But most of the controversy has focused on the second conceptual problem, the definition of "democracy While

  2. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the system of choosing presidential candidates.

    This encouraged a higher level of political participation, as voters could feel a part of the decision making process. Some primaries, such as Michigan State, saw a significantly increased turnout in 2000 compared to 1996. Primaries however, do not ensure an electoral mandate; of those eligible to vote, only 1

  1. What are the dilemmas of a pluralist democracy?

    If private associations, according to McConnell (p.120), are to play an important role in politics, we need to ask how they have governed themselves and 'they have not governed themselves well at all.' Marxist writers have also criticised pluralism in this way, Ralph Miliband (The State in Capitalist Society)

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    The number of parties participating was kept lower than it might have been otherwise. Thirteen parties competed, out of which eight gained seats through the two voting methods, an additional four gained a few seats in the single-member district voting (a total of 8 out of 225), and one gained no seats (White, Rose, and McAllister 1997, 123).

  1. To what extent do recent elections in the UK and the USA support the ...

    When exploring issues such as 'class' there are few overlapping similarities, indeed Britain exists as a very class-conscious society, while America does not attach such prevalence to class position. The diversity of the countries also differs exceptionally; there is much to be gleaned from the study of African American voting in America while that cannot be applied here.

  2. Participation is the essence of democracy Discuss

    You do not need to vote because it is your choice. We can see that from 2001 to 2010 there has been an upward trend in the amount of votes. The main reason for this is because of the Iraq war and a large amount of the population had an opinion on it.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work