Power & Persuasion: The Citizenry and Rulers of Russia

In their book Russia, John Thompson and Christopher Ward tell the somber story of President Boris Yeltsin’s resignation in the final hours of the twentieth century. The apathetic Russian people, disillusioned with Yeltsin’s shortcomings in the reimagination of a more equitable society, perhaps unknowingly entered the new millennium on a regressive trajectory towards authoritarianism with the election of Vladimir Putin.

In this quote, Yeltsin underscores the difficulty in disrupting historical continuity and redirecting Russia from its gravitation towards totalitarianism. Rooted in the socio-economic landscape of Russia and the former Soviet satellites is an acquiescence to authoritarianism that individual leaders harness to consolidate their power. The intertwined narratives of the history, politics, and economy of Russia and the former Soviet satellites reveal some of the mechanisms exploited by rulers to suppress the collective people, while the regional dynamic of protest and civil dissent displays how this despotic power is challenged.

While Presidents Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko hold defined roles as the power-holders of Russia and Belarus respectively, it is difficult to comprehensively address the diverse socio-political positions of the general populace. Although the citizenry of Russia and the former Soviet satellites is not a uniform body, the people therein can be analyzed by their various forms of consent to authoritarianism; while many remain acquiescent for survival, others, such as the riot police, actively maintain the imbalance of power. Nevertheless, the nuances between the positions of the general people are often negligible in the power-dynamics of the region, as their societal roles adhere to the state's conventions unless utilized in direct opposition. It is important, however, to recognize that many lack the social privilege and mobility to participate in dissent; therefore, it is of the utmost importance that those able work explicitly towards a balanced power-dynamic that liberates the many unfortunately confined to the state's practices.

The articles below connect the historical, economic, and political forms of power harnessed by Lukashenko and Putin and how they are challenged.

The economic and political histories of Russia and former Soviet satellites offer insight into the maintenance of authoritarian power structures in the countries today. Stalin’s rule was marked by his fixation on eliminating an elusive fifth column; indiscriminately suspicious of his citizens, he employed policies of strict censorship and increasingly drastic measures in catastrophic events like the Great Purge. Although Russia had a glimpse at a bright democratic future with Gorbachev’s reforms, the struggles of redefining Russia’s political and economic structures have led the country back to heightened centralization and authoritarianism. Likewise, after the fall of the Soviet Union, freshly independent Belarus was positioned to make extensive changes to its government. The free and representative ideals of a democratic society, however, were hurriedly squandered due to the tense political conditions of the time. The precedent of dictatorial and more authoritarian leadership in Belarus left a massive power vacuum that was quickly filled by Alexander Lukashenko. Perhaps other outcomes were possible, but more advanced apparatuses for political change and increasingly determined efforts would have been needed in order to truly disrupt this pattern of authoritarianism.

In contemporary Russia, Vladimir Putin controls historic and economic narratives in order to maintain and consolidate centralized authority. Possibly intoxicated with his power or reaping the rewards of a complacent society,  Putin  works deliberately to squash opposition and maintain control over Russia, in part through the manipulation of historical narratives.  In one example , Putin manipulated his own narrative surrounding Yugoslavia’s Bulldozer Revolution. When protests in Yugoslavia successfully ousted Slobodan Milošević, the Russian leader was congratulatory of the democratic victory. Today, however, the Kremlin speaks of this event as a failure and propagates the message that similar Color Revolutions are unsuccessful and misguided. By spreading this narrative that oppositional protest is ineffective, Putin can coerce complacency amongst his citizens. Alternatively, the successful oppositional protest against Milošević reveals how potent civil dissent can be if mobilized effectively. Furthermore, the move to discourage opposition suggests that Putin’s position of power hangs on the complacency of the citizenry.

 The prevailing economic narrative–that of growth–is, upon examination, really one of increased centralization. Putin has seemingly wrought an economic miracle in Russia over the past decade, resulting in huge increases in GDP and living standards. Yet these successes were built on the backs of surging global energy prices, which Putin harnessed by nationalizing oil and gas companies. The key factors for continued economic development, such as reducing corruption and state-owned enterprises, have been neglected in favor of furthering the centralization of economic power in the hands of the central government and leaders of state-owned enterprises—two groups with significant overlap. Oil and gas revenues are funneled to the oligarchs and bureaucrats to fund the coercive tools of the state, including propaganda and suppression of opponents. By establishing himself as Russia’s economic hero and suppressing opposition figures who advocate for a less centralized economy, Putin can breed positive support for his leadership. Furthermore, with most economic power resting in the upper echelons of Russia’s society, the lower classes could be discouraged to voice protest because their very means of working and living are controlled by the ones they would be protesting. Putin’s manipulation of historical and economic narratives helps maintain a power dynamic in which he and his close associates wield almost total power, controlling every part of the common person's life: their living standards, working opportunities, and their will to protest.

The outcomes of protests in Russia and the former Soviet satellites suggest that political maladies are not solely created by individual rulers, but rather the accepted dynamic that those in power hold indomitable supremacy. Increasingly effective oppositional movements, such as those  organized against the Lukashenko regime , display the ability of the common people to re-define imbalanced power dynamics by addressing that their acquiescence to authoritarianism is enabling.

Over the last few months, President Alexander Lukashenko has maintained his power by  tampering with elections and suppressing protests , methods similar to Putin’s historical tendencies. Likewise, key to Lukashenko’s success in the oppression of the people has been  Russia’s continued support of his regime . Belarus and Russia hold connections in their historic  economic collaboration ; any attack on Lukashenko and Putin threatens the maintenance of these regionally-stabilizing financial interests, making it integral that any dissent is quashed. Putin and Lukashenko’s aligned approaches to protest and dissent reveal that the oppressive power dynamic between two key groups of people—rulers and citizenries—are perpetuated across borders and can only be thwarted through the collective efforts of the populace to reject authoritarian rule entirely.

Contrarily, protests focused only on the actions of certain power-holders, such as those centered  on more equitable healthcare for drug-users in Russia , have met lackluster results due to their struggles for the mere inclusion of marginalized groups in the socio-political apparatus of their rulers. The mere fact that these protests spanned a twenty-eight year period reveals the unwillingness of the government to cater to the needs of the people; currently, Putin seems entirely averse to abandoning his narratives of economic progress and stability in favor of more equitable healthcare. These protests, therefore, contribute directly to the complacency that Putin and Lukashenko rely on, as they perpetuate the idea that true justice is achievable within the state's repressive socio-political paradigms. Furthermore, they reject the liberation of the people who must partake in draconian regimes to survive, therefore creating further societal divisions. Movements of protest and civil dissent and the relationship between Russia and the former Soviet satellites reveal the considerable power of the populace when they unite to reject the notion that their rulers hold irrevocable rights to dominance. 

Power dynamics in Russia and the former Soviet satellites are shaped by the convolution of political and economic narratives by power-holders and their subsequent questioning by the citizenry. Although President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus have historically manipulated these narratives in congruence with the oppressive institutions of the state, their grasp on the people remains in flux as the globe appears to delve into what Francis Fukuyama calls “the universalization of Western liberal democracy” (Fukuyama 2). While the validity of Fukuyama's words remains unclear, the people of Russia and the former Soviet satellites have evidently embraced change in favor of democratic practices. With this spread of revolutionary spirit, the essence of the words of Pussy Riot’s punk prayer,

ring throughout the region as the people relinquish their will to exist within the narrow socio-political paradigms of the state.