Recent Events in Washington, DC

Debate on “Russia: How Sovereign? How Democratic?” between Sergei Markov and Michael McFaul

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Friday, May 12, 2006

Dr. Sergei Markov started his presentation by noting that he has been a supporter of President Vladimir Putin. Markov believes that Russia was not democratic during the 1990s but began moving to a right direction under Putin. Although this particular debate’s theme was whether or not Russia was sovereign and democratic, Markov’s presentation mainly focused on the U.S. foreign policy. The thrust of his argument was that the U.S. double standards complicate its relations with Russia. Markov berated Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent censure of Russia backtracking from democracy during his visit to Lithuania in early May. This, however, did not prevent Cheney from visiting not so democratic Kazakhstan and offering cooperation to Nazarbayev. Another U.S. ally, Latvia, is a democracy but the human rights limitations, especially those of the Russian minority, has been overlooked. The U.S. criticizes the recent Russian bill on NGOs but it does not do the same toward other countries.

Markov repeatedly emphasized that Russia is not a democracy but it is on its way to become one. He has been a supporter of Russia’s alliance with the U.S. but he stressed that political actions of Cheney do not help Russia become more democratic. On the contrary, they push Russia away from the U.S. The U.S. itself should serve as an example of democracy to Russia. According to Markov, the U.S. public diplomacy through broadcasts of the VOA and RFERL were real voices of democracy before the fall of the U.S.S.R. What kind of an example does the U.S. show now? Should we look at the war in Iraq where now weapons of mass destruction were found?

According to Markov, the U.S. views Russia through the Cold War lenses and it should stop doing so. The U.S. should learn to respect Russian interests. Russia is growing and getting stronger, and will continue to do so. Markov noted that when he looks at Vice President Cheney and Iraq he does not Russia going to the wrong direction but the U.S. heading on a wrong course. He concluded by saying that Russia needs to clean itself of the democratic notions promoted by the U.S.

Dr. Michael McFaul disagreed with Markov in that there was no democracy in Russia during the 1990s. On the contrary, crackdown on democracy has been more intense over the past six years than during the 90s. McFaul noted that from Markov’s argument it could inferred that things have changed for better since the 1990s and asked him to give concrete examples, which the latter could not provide. McFaul said that the ongoing rise of the executive power was prophesied in the books he and his co-authors published on Russia in the 1990s.

McFaul asked if there was a minimalist democracy in Russia and what its trajectory was. McFaul agreed with the recent criticisms of the Council on Foreign Relations report and Vice President Cheney that the state of Russian democracy has got worse over the past six years. The checks on the executive power are weak; the media are weak; there is less competition; oligarchs (admitting that they are bad guys) play lesser role in checking the executive power, and even weaker check of the State Duma on the executive power. Political parties were never strong in Russia but they are even weaker now. The civil society was more active in the 1990s than now. Citing Joseph Schumpeter’s definition of minimalist democracy, key facets of which are competition and uncertainty of election results McFaul noted that none of these apply to current Russia. Rules for the elections should be clear and certain and should not change before the elections. Russia has seen no organized competition, which is a key variable of democracy. Hence, Russia does not meet these minimalist standards.

McFaul agreed about the U.S. double standards towards Kazakhstan and other countries. However, he noted, invoking the problems in Iraq and the poor track record of the U.S. democracy promotion is not an excuse for Russia not to do anything to improve its own democratic standing. McFaul did not agree with Markov’s argument that the U.S. views Russia through the Cold War lenses. The U.S. is not about to rekindle the Cold War. It is the difficulty of dealing with Russia, which is a problem for the U.S. The U.S. relations with Russia are similar to its relationship with Musharaff, Hu Jintao, and Nazarbayev, that is, they are complex but necessary relations. McFaul seconded the opinion of Andrey Piontkovsky, director of the Center for Strategic Research in Moscow, from the audience who noted that it is in fact Russia that has been adamant over the past two years claiming that the U.S. was a threat to Russia.

Contrasting the U.S. sovereignty to Russia, McFaul agreed Zbignew Brezinski’s claim that the U.S. is the most sovereign country. In the U.S., foreigners are allowed to work, research, study, own property, invest in religious institutions, maintain NGO offices, hire public relations experts to lobby in Congress, own parts of the media and broadcast (BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc.). American NGOs and think tanks can take foreign money that have ties to their corresponding governments. These features are a testament to the U.S. sovereignty. Why does Russia want to be more sovereign?

Responding to McFaul’s arguments, Markov said that the reason why he talked about the U.S. foreign policy is because it is a problem. Every country has its own way to become democratic. At this juncture, Russia needs a good example of democracy, which the U.S. is not.

According to Markov, there was more competition and uncertainty in the 1990s but they were also characteristics of anarchy. It was not a democracy. Meanwhile, Putin helped solve the country’s important problems and he is preparing it to become more democratic. In fact, Putin had done more for Russian democracy than Yeltsin. Criticizing some of Putin’s weaknesses, Markov said that corruption in Russia is a big problem and Putin has not been paying enough attention to it. Russia should do more to improve the standing of political parties, alleviate socio-economic issues, among other things. But in general, the country is going to the right direction, creating conditions for democracy. Russia needs the U.S. help in these efforts. The U.S. should not invade any other country or try to encircle Russia by allying with anti-Russian ex-Soviet governments.

The interesting part of the debate was on the alleged media propaganda of each country against each other. Markov remarked that there is anti-U.S. propaganda in the Russian media; however, it is the same with the U.S. media. He said that some journalists in Washington Post criticize Russia so much as if they have a personal vendetta against it. McFaul interjected noting that this is a serious claim and Markov should provide more concrete facts because McFaul knows journalists in Washington Post and they do not write anti-Russian propaganda articles. The articles criticize the actions of Putin. McFaul stressed that with all due respect, it is dishonest to make such sweeping claims, which are in fact a form of propaganda.

Sergei Markov is Director of the Institute for Political Studies in Moscow and Head of Russia’s Public Forum on International Affairs. Michael McFaul is Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment, Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Associate Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. Together, they are authors of The Troubled Birth of Russian Democracy (1993).