For three centuries, our country has managed to go through almost all the regimes that exist between slavery and democracy. Nevertheless, in its pure form, no regime has ever taken place, it has always been one or another symbiosis. And now the political system of Russia combines both elements of a democratic system and authoritarian institutions and management methods.
About Hybrid Modes
This scientific term refers to regimes where the signs of authoritarianism and democracy are merged together, and most often these systems are intermediate. There are a lot of definitions, but with the help of a comprehensive analysis they were able to be divided into two groups. The first group of scientists sees the hybrid regime as illiberal democracy, that is, democracy with a minus, while the second, on the contrary, considers Russia's political system to be competitive or electoral authoritarianism, that is, it is authoritarianism with a plus.
The definition of "hybrid mode" in itself is quite popular, since it has a certain lack of value and neutrality. Many scholars are sure that the political system of Russia allows all the democratic elements inherent in it for decoration: parliamentarism, a multi-party system, elections, and everything that is democratic, only cover genuine authoritarianism. However, it should be noted that such an imitation moves in the opposite direction.
In Russia
The political system of Russia is simultaneously trying to present itself as more repressive and more democratic than it really is. The scale of authoritarianism - democracy is long enough for the subject of this scientific debate to find consensus. Most scientists are inclined to qualify a hybrid regime in a country where at least two political parties legally exist that participate in parliamentary elections. A multi-party system and regular election campaigns should also be legal. Then the kind of authoritarianism at least ceases to be pure. But is it not important that the parties compete with each other? And the number of violations of freedom of elections counts?
Russia is a federal presidential-parliamentary republic. In any case, this is declared. Imitation is not a hoax, as the social sciences claim. This is a much more complex phenomenon. Hybrid regimes tend to have corruption at a very high level (including in court, and not just in elections), a government that is not accountable to parliament, indirect but tight control of the authorities over the media, and limited civil liberties (the creation of public organizations and public gatherings). As we all know, these signs are also demonstrated by the political system of Russia now. However, it is interesting to trace the whole path that the country has traveled in its political development.
Century earlier
It should be borne in mind that Russia is in the second echelon of the countries that began capitalist development, and it began it much later than the countries of the West, which are considered leading. Nevertheless, literally in forty years, she has come the same way that these countries took many centuries. This was due to the extremely high growth rates of industry, and they were promoted by the economic policy of the government, which accelerated the development of many industries and the construction of railways. Thus, the political system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century simultaneously with the advanced countries entered the imperialist stage. But it was not so easy, capitalism, with such a rapid development, could not hide its bestial grin. A revolution was inevitable. Why and how has the political system of Russia changed, what factors have triggered dramatic changes?
Prewar situation
1. Monopolies arose rapidly, relying on a high concentration of capital and production, capturing all the dominant economic positions. The dictatorship of capital was based only on its own growth, ignoring the costs of human resources. Nobody invested in the peasantry, and it gradually lost the ability to feed the country.
2. Industry merged closely with banks, financial capital grew, and a financial oligarchy appeared.
3. Goods and raw materials were exported from the country by a stream, and the withdrawal of capitals gained enormous scope. The forms were diverse, as now: government loans, direct investments in the economy of other states.
4. The emergence of international monopolistic unions and intensified the struggle for markets for raw materials, sales and investment.
5. Competition in the sphere of influence between the rich countries of the world reached its climax, it was this that led first to a number of local wars, then the First World War broke out. And the people are already tired of all these features of the social and political system of Russia.
The end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century: economics
The industrial upsurge of the nineties naturally ended in a three-year dire economic crisis that began in 1900, after which an even more prolonged depression occurred - until 1908. Then, finally, there came a time of some prosperity - a whole series of productive years from 1908 to 1913 allowed the economy to make another sharp leap when industrial production grew one and a half times.
Prominent political figures of Russia, preparing the revolution of 1905 and numerous mass protests, almost lost the fertile platform for their activities. Monopolization received another bonus in the Russian economy: many small enterprises died during the crisis, even more medium-sized enterprises went bankrupt during the depression, the weak left, and the strong were able to concentrate industrial production in their hands. The enterprises were massively corporatized, it was time for monopolies - cartels and syndicates, which were united in order to best sell their products.
Politics
The political system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was an absolute monarchy, the emperor with all the succession to the throne had all power. The double-headed eagle with royal regalia proudly sat on the coat of arms, and the flag was the same as today - white-blue-red. When the political system in Russia changes and the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives, the flag will simply be red. Like the blood that people shed for centuries. And on the coat of arms - a sickle and a hammer with ears of corn. But it will only be in 1917. And at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the system, created under Alexander the First, still triumphed in the country.
The Council of State was legislative: it did not decide anything, it could only express opinions. Not a single project without the signature of the king has ever become law. The court was ordered by the Senate. The Cabinet of Ministers ruled on state affairs, but nothing was solved here either without a tsar — such was the political system of Russia in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th. But the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Internal Affairs already had the broadest competencies. Financiers could dictate conditions to the tsar, and the secret search secret police with its provocateurs, censorship and political detectives if it didn’t dictate, then could influence the tsar’s decision radically.
Emigration
Civil lawlessness, a difficult situation in the economy and repression (yes, not Stalin invented them!) Caused a growing and growing flow of emigration - and this is not the 21st century, but the 19th! The peasantry left the country, going first to neighboring states - to earn money, then rushing around the world, it was then that Russian settlements were created in the USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and even in Australia. It was not the revolution of 1917 and the subsequent war that generated this stream, they simply did not allow it to fade for some time.
What are the reasons for this outflow of subjects in the nineteenth century? In the 20th century, not everyone could understand and accept the political system of Russia, so the reason is clear. But people have already fled from the absolute monarchy, how so? In addition to harassment on ethnic grounds, the people experienced inadequate conditions for education and the best special training in a professional way, citizens were looking for a worthy application of their abilities and forces in their life, but this was impossible for so many reasons. And a huge part of the emigration - many thousands of people - were fighters against the autocracy, future revolutionaries who from there led the rising parties, published newspapers, wrote books.
Liberation movement
The contradictions in society were so acute at the beginning of the twentieth century that very often resulted in open protests of many thousands, the revolutionary situation was brewing not by the day, but by the hour. A storm was constantly raging among the students. The labor movement played the most significant role in this situation, and it has already been so determined that by 1905 it was already making demands in combination with economic and political ones. The socio-political system of Russia was noticeably staggering. In 1901, workers of Kharkov went on strike on May Day at the same time as the strike at the Obukhov enterprise in St. Petersburg, where there were repeated skirmishes with the police.
By 1902, the strike swept the entire south of the country, starting from Rostov. In 1904, the general strike in Baku and many other cities. In addition, the movement expanded among the peasantry. Kharkov and Poltava rebelled in 1902, so much so that it was quite comparable with the peasant wars of Pugachev and Razin. The liberal opposition also raised their voice in the Zemstvo campaign of 1904. In such circumstances, the organization of the protest should have taken place without fail. True, they still hoped for the government, but it still did not take any steps towards radical reorganization, and Russia, which had long outlived its political system, very slowly died. In short, a revolution was inevitable. And it happened on October 25 (November 7), 1917, significantly different from the previous ones: the bourgeois - in 1905 and February 1917, when the Provisional Government appeared in power.
Twenties of the twentieth century
The political system of the Russian Empire at that time radically changed. Throughout the territory, except the Baltic states, Finland, Western Belarus and Ukraine, Bessarabia, the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks came as an option of a political system with one party. Other Soviet parties that still existed in the early twenties were defeated: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks self-dissolved in 1920, the Bund in 1921, and in 1922 the Socialist-Revolutionary leaders were accused of counter-revolution and terrorism, tried and punished. The Mensheviks acted a little more humane, because the world community was protesting against repression. Most simply expelled from the country. So the opposition was over. In 1922, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (B), and this accelerated the centralization of the party, as well as the development of technology of power, with a rigid vertical within the framework of structures of local missions.
Terror sharply decreased and quickly disappeared completely, although as such, the rule of law in the modern sense was not built. However, already in 1922, the Civil and Criminal Codes were approved, tribunals were abolished, advocates and prosecutors were established, censorship was enshrined in the Constitution, and the Cheka was transformed into the GPU. The end of the Civil War was the time of birth of the Soviet republics: the RSFSR, the Byelorussian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian. There were also Khorezm and Bukhara and Far East. And everywhere, the Communist Party was at the head, and the state system of the Russian Federation (RSFSR) was no different from, say, the Armenian one. Each republic had its own constitution, its own bodies of power and administration. In 1922, Soviet states began to unite in a federal union. This was not an easy and difficult task; it did not work out right away. The formed Soviet Union was a federal entity, where national formations had only cultural autonomy, but this was extremely powerful: already in the 1920s a huge number of local newspapers, theaters, national schools were created, literature was published in all languages of the peoples of the USSR without exception, and many peoples who did not have a written language received it, to which the brightest minds of the learned world were attracted. The Soviet Union showed unrivaled power, despite the fact that the country was twice in ruins. However, after seventy years, it was not war, deprivation, but … satiety and contentment that killed him. And traitors inside the ruling class.
21 century
What is today's regime? This is not the 90s, when the authorities reflected only the interests of the bourgeoisie and the oligarchy that suddenly appeared. The broad philistine masses were fueled by the media in their own interest and hope to soon “unwind”. It was not a system, but rather its absence. Full robbery and lawlessness. What now? Now the political system of the Russian Federation, according to some experts, is very reminiscent of Bonapartist. Turning to the modern Russian transformation program allows us to see similar parameters in it. This program began to be implemented as an adjustment to the previous course of radical social transformations associated with the rejection of the pretty annoyed Soviet model of society, and in this sense, of course, has a conservative focus. The legitimizing formula of the new Russian political system today also has a dual character, based simultaneously on democratic elections and traditional Soviet legitimacy.
State capitalism - where is it?
There is an opinion that under Soviet rule there was a system of state capitalism. However, any capitalism is based primarily on profit. Now, it is very similar to this system with its state corporations. But in the USSR, even when Kosygin tried to find economic leverage, this did not exist at all. In the Soviet Union, the system was transitional, with the features of socialism and - to a lesser extent - capitalism. Socialism was manifested not so much in the distribution of public consumer funds with state guarantees for the elderly, sick and disabled. Recall that even pensions for all appeared only at the last stage of the country's existence.
But the organization in managing public life and the economy was not at all capitalistic; it was completely built on technocratic principles, and not on capitalist ones. However, the Soviet Union did not know socialism in its purest form, except that there was public ownership of the means of production. However, state property is not synonymous with public property, since there is no way to dispose of it, and sometimes even know how to do it. Openness with a constantly hostile environment is impossible, therefore, there was even a state monopoly on information. No publicity where the stratum of managers disposed of information as private property. Social equality is the principle of socialism, which, incidentally, admits material inequality. There is no antagonism between classes, not one social layer was suppressed by the other, and therefore it did not occur to anyone to defend social privileges. However, there was a powerful army, and around it - a mass of officials who had not only a huge difference in salary, but also had a whole system of benefits.
