Russia's Deteriorating Democracy's Effect on U.S.-Russia Relations
By Michael A. McFaul, James Goldgeier
Washington Post, April 19, 2006

In an April 19 Washington Post article, Michael McFaul and James Goldgeier argue that the deterioration of Russia’s relationship with the West is directly linked to the deterioration of its democracy.

In the recently published National Security Strategy, the Bush administration formally acknowledged what many analysts have stated for some time - that the Russian federation under President Putin has abandoned its previous commitment to democratic development.

McFaul and Goldgeier point to weakening checks and balances, diminishing transparency, and consolidation and centralization of power in the executive as signs of democratic decay under President Putin.  Putin’s autocratic reforms, they argue, have undermined the ability of an independent media, political parties or nongovernmental groups to function.  As examples of Russia’s increasingly authoritarian character, the article points to the experience of Open Russia, an NGO whose bank accounts were frozen; legislation that empowers appointed governors at the expense of elected mayors; and physical intimidation of opposition activists.

The authors go on to suggest that this democracy deficit contributes to Moscow’s tendency to adopt anti-democratic, anti-Western stances in recent world developments.  They point out that in the last month alone, Russia has confronted the West by supporting Alexander Lukashenko’s repressive regime in Belarus, denying a visa to a major Western investor, and dragging their feet in the U.N. censure of Iran. Moreover, the authors cite a Pentagon report accusing the Russians of reporting U.S. troop movements to Sadaam Hussein in the recent Iraq War.

McFaul and Goldgeier posit that the divergence of Western and Russian foreign policy preferences and the concurrent democratic backsliding are not correlated. They see these simultaneous developments as evidence that regime type, democratic or not, matters when it comes to America’s strategic interests. They write, “…how a country defines ‘strategic interest’ depends on its regime; democracies have one set of definitions, autocracies another.” 

McFaul and Goldgeier believe that only a more democratic Russia can be a genuine partner for the U.S. in the region in its quest to promote democracy, foster property rights conducive to investment, establish energy security, and fight terrorist groups and rogue regimes that undermine global security.