Russia; Academic

The purpose of reading an academic treatment of the subject was twofold: First, to give me an alternative view of the book that I'm currently using and; Second, to give me a clinical perspective to compare with personal and anecdotal perspective I was experiencing at street level.

The book I have chosen is Charles Hauss' text on Comparative Politics. It was the first text I used when I began teaching comparative politics several years ago. It is still very good.  I moved away from it because of the subset of countries he examined at the time - I preferred Roskin's Mexico and Nigeria for Hauss' Brazil and South Africa.

Reading Hauss' chapters on Russia reminded me of why I used it before.  It does a great job setting the stage for current Russian politics by putting it into its historical context. He traces the strains of today's authoritarian regime back to the history of the Czars and the Soviets. While we in the west are wondering if Russia will move towards democracy Hauss reminds us that democracy is quite alien to Russia - yesterday or today. Tomorrow does not look all that promising either.

Hauss' descriptions of Russia's recent transitional past and the institutions and practices that it has produced fit well with my observations and experiences. Russia is not now democratic. It does not appear to be on the precipice of becoming so. It is not impossible. Hauss points out that politics since the late 80's has been largely shaped by personalities. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin.  The future is likely to be the same. Is there a "Washington"** in Russia's future? Or another Stalin? Russia's future may hinge on which one Putin wants to be.

** Apparently, as Napoleon lay on his deathbed, defeated and forlorn, among his last words were, “They expected me to be another Washington.”  What he meant was, they expected him to serve, then leave power peacefully and voluntarily.  Right.  Like that's gonna happen.