When the Chinese offered Vladimir Putin their equivalent of a Nobel peace prize at the end of last year, many commentators seemed confused. How could a leader who is increasingly seen as dictatorial receive such an accolade. Many assumed it was just another attempt by China to snub the Western Human Rights agenda and culture. However, have China got it right on this one. Peace prizes are presumably meant to be awarded to those who try and avoid war or military confrontation, and condemn them when they occur.
Russia under Putin has taken a very pragmatic approach to foreign affairs: getting involved in countries that border it but rarely venturing much further. It has learnt, in large part, the lessons of the Soviet misadventures, like in Afghanistan.
Russia has never functioned as a liberal democracy: it experienced the autocratic Tsars monarchy followed almost immediately by a Communist revolution that installed a dictatorial regime in Moscow. Russia is a country that is used to having a strong leader - whether that is a Tsar, Lenin, Stalin or Putin. Autocratic powerful leaders are all many russians have known. And the two times that Russia has had a system almost equating to democracy, just before the 1917 revolution and in the years after the Soviet collapse, it has failed them in a big way. The first because it was ineffective, and then with the return to democracy after the Soviet collapse- during Boris Yeltsin's leadership - Russia was ridiculed on the World stage.
No wonder then that Putin's more autocratic style is popular amongst Russian: as far as many are concerned it is the only system that has worked for them. Putin has succeeded because he has put some pride back into Russian society. After the collapse of communism, many Russians felt humiliated. Under the Soviet system, Russia had a sense of pride in competing against America: after its collapse they had nothing, they were a defeated nation entering a period of military hegemony by a state they had once competed against for global influence.
Putin is seen as a leader that is willing to defend Russia's national interest once again. A bulwark against attempts by the west to spread normative values. He has succeeded on the economic front as well. Russia has experienced 9 years of continous economic growth: GDP has risen by 63%, poverty has halved and average monthly incomes have increased from $80 to $640 under Putin's stewardship of the economy.
Like him or hate him, Putin has been a successful leader of the Russian Federation. And as he mentioned in an interview, and I paraphrase, "of course Russia has freedom of speech, otherwise there would not have been any protests in the first place".
Russia under Putin has taken a very pragmatic approach to foreign affairs: getting involved in countries that border it but rarely venturing much further. It has learnt, in large part, the lessons of the Soviet misadventures, like in Afghanistan.
Russia has never functioned as a liberal democracy: it experienced the autocratic Tsars monarchy followed almost immediately by a Communist revolution that installed a dictatorial regime in Moscow. Russia is a country that is used to having a strong leader - whether that is a Tsar, Lenin, Stalin or Putin. Autocratic powerful leaders are all many russians have known. And the two times that Russia has had a system almost equating to democracy, just before the 1917 revolution and in the years after the Soviet collapse, it has failed them in a big way. The first because it was ineffective, and then with the return to democracy after the Soviet collapse- during Boris Yeltsin's leadership - Russia was ridiculed on the World stage.
No wonder then that Putin's more autocratic style is popular amongst Russian: as far as many are concerned it is the only system that has worked for them. Putin has succeeded because he has put some pride back into Russian society. After the collapse of communism, many Russians felt humiliated. Under the Soviet system, Russia had a sense of pride in competing against America: after its collapse they had nothing, they were a defeated nation entering a period of military hegemony by a state they had once competed against for global influence.
Putin is seen as a leader that is willing to defend Russia's national interest once again. A bulwark against attempts by the west to spread normative values. He has succeeded on the economic front as well. Russia has experienced 9 years of continous economic growth: GDP has risen by 63%, poverty has halved and average monthly incomes have increased from $80 to $640 under Putin's stewardship of the economy.
Like him or hate him, Putin has been a successful leader of the Russian Federation. And as he mentioned in an interview, and I paraphrase, "of course Russia has freedom of speech, otherwise there would not have been any protests in the first place".
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire