Everything in This World is Relative
Russia is not a Western-style democracy and probably never will be.
However, all talk about democracy being in retreat here is laughable, if not pathetic.
By Edward Lozansky
Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow

As a nuclear physicist in my previous existence, I hold Albert Einstein’s dictum about all things being relative in this world very dear to my heart. The continuous, often almost hysterical attacks on Putin by the Western media make one wonder if the journalists writing these articles understand this scientific fact or, like most American high school students, they skipped physics courses altogether.

Let me follow up on this reference to Einstein with the usual American electoral question: are we better off today than in 2000, when Putin came to power? I am not asking you to compare Russia in 2005 with the Communist past since the answer is all too obvious, but with Yeltsin’s years in power, which many Western Russia watchers regard as the shining height of democracy. Even Putin’s harshest critics admit that during his short tenure Russia has experienced a phenomenal economic boom and, what is more important for most Russian people, they have felt a revival of their national pride. OK, the critics say, but what about democracy? Isn’t it in constant retreat under Putin? This may surprise you, but I do not think so. I am ready to admit that Russia is not a Western-style democracy and probably never will be. However, all talk about democracy being in retreat here is laughable, if not pathetic.

To prove my point let me tell you a little story. During the 1996 Russian presidential campaign I was involved in the organization of Vice President Dan Quayle’s visit to Moscow. It was Quayle’s first trip to Russia and he wanted to meet with presidential candidates and other movers and shakers. One such meeting was with none other than Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at that time head of Menatep Bank.

The meeting took place in his elegant office on Kolpachny Pereulok, former headquarters of the Young Communist League – his former employer. During this meeting Mikhail took a couple of phone calls. He apologized for interrupting our conversation but the urgency of the calls was obvious. Together with a few other bankers, Khodorkovsky was deciding who would be the next man in the Kremlin. Yeltsin popularity rating hovered around two percent at that time, but it did not matter since the two major TV channels were in the hands of two oligarchs, Gusinsky and Berezovsky, and they felt confident that these ratings could be changed fast. “We will offer Communist leader Zyuganov the prime-minister’s seat if he behaves properly,” Misha assured us before excusing himself and rushing off to another meeting, apparently to seal the election results to be held in a few months.

Now we read that Freedom House believes Russia to have been “almost free” at that time and “not free” now. Well, with all due respect to this organization and others who are nostalgic for the Yeltsin times, I can only say this: all of us would want Russia to be run by men with the character and integrity of people like Tom Jefferson, FDR, or Andrei Sakharov. However, as Donald Rumsfeld recently said, you fight with what you have and not with what you wish you had.

Therefore you can call me cynic or any other names, but if I were to choose between Putin and KGB (I mean of course the acronym for the Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, Berezovsky trio) for Russia’s rulers, I’d opt for the former. It looks like the overwhelming majority of Russians agree with me, and I can only praise Bush for not yielding to the hysterical cries of the Western media to get tough with his Kremlin friend. The American president knows all too well that in these troubled times, given the present political landscape in Russia, Putin is our best option.

When I see a better one, I will let you know.