Why Did Russia Not Move Towards Democracy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2287 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/02/15 Category Politics Essay Level High school Topics: Democracy Essay Did you like this example? Russian intelligence interfered with the United States 2016 presidential elections. Allegedly, hackers and trolls armed themselves with fake news and fake accounts that swung public perception and votes toward President Donald Trump, who won the election in a dramatic upset. This alleged breach of democratic institutions to influence an election in an effort to fulfill the interests of the Russian regime under Vladimir Putin marks yet another point in Russia’s long struggle with Democracy. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Why Did Russia Not Move Towards Democracy" essay for you Create order Russia stands out among the European and global powers because of the country’s historical unwillingness to develop democratic institutions. Despite having proximity to major democratic powers, major ports and some of the postulates used for the formation of democratic institutions, Russia today ranks 135th in corruption globally and scores a 20 out of 100 on the freedom scale according to freedom house (Transparency International, 2017, Freedom House, 2018). What happened? Russia has not developed into a democratic society for several reasons. First, there is a long history of government subjugation of individuals that has become embedded into Russian culture. Second, the religious ideology in Russia fostered a sense of superiority over the West and created an anti-western mindset and hostility towards western ideals such as democracy. And finally, the economic system that has existed in Russia for most of their history prevented capitalist economic development and its cultur al repercussions prevented individual empowerment and a sense of individual freedom, core ideological elements of a democracy. Before discussing Russia, it is important to understand the postulates that scholars typically attribute to the development of democracy in the West. First, the development of the Protestant religion had a significant effect on democracy (Bruce, 2007, page 4). Western countries, like England, adopted Protestantism during the protestant reformation. The Protestant ideal that everyone is equal in the eye of God is a core democratic principle (Bruce, 2007, page 7). It justifies the right for everyone to vote as well as being equal under the law. The protestant idea that you can achieve salvation by working hard and that you don’t have to follow in the family footsteps is a core belief of another postulate of democracy: capitalism (Bruce, 2007, page 13, 15). Capitalism and the freedoms that come with it changed what the people expected from their government, as well as the demand for greater freedoms (Bruce, 2007, page 7). Though not a postulate, Western democracies have often had democratic revolutions, some bloodier than others (Bruce, 2007, page 13). These revolutions overthrew the established aristocracy and implemented democratic institutions. Using this as a foundation, it becomes increasingly clear why Russia failed to establish democratic institutions. Russia’s failure to develop into a democratic nation can partially be explained by the influence of Russia’s Eastern orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church was established in 1589 after the Eastern Orthodox diverged from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, an event that would later be called the Great Schism (BBC, 2008; Makrides, 2009, page 212). This early division in faith meant that Christianity developed very differently in Orthodox Russia than did the Catholic West (Makrides, 2009, page 212). While the Orthodox church kept its tight grip on the East, the Catholic Church was questioned, leading to the Protestant Reformation. On a spiritual level, the followers of the Russia Orthodox Church thought of themselves as superior and an accurate representation of the Christian faith (Makrides, 2009, page 214). The Orthodoxy, unsurprisingly, deemed Protestants and Catholics as heretics and could find no middle ground with their spiritual counterparts and rejected anti- western sentiments which would endure throughout Russian history (Makrides, 2009 pages 213-214, 218). If the Russian Orthodox people looked at themselves as superior to the West, then it comes as no surprise that they did not adopt their institutions. If the Western mindset was heretical and bad, this explains why the people didn’t support this sort of mindset. It’s clear then that the Russian Orthodox faith steered the people and the nation away from democratic institutions on the basis of religious disagreement. The same anti-western mindset prevented the development of Protestantism in Russia which has long been attributed as a catalyst for the development of democracy and capitalism. The fundamental beliefs and the mindset of protestants that everyone is equal under God and that salvation is attained through good works that are crucial for developing a democratic mindset never came into fruition in Russia. Without these fundamental principles for democracy in Russi a, there was no ideological justification and motivation for developing democratic institutions in Russia, so democratic institutions never came. It is important to point out that the power of the Russian orthodox church was greatly reduced by Peter the Great and the subsequent Tsars (Kallistos, 1997, excerpt). While it can be argued that the decline in the power of the Church proves that the Church had little influence on the lack of a democracy, these arguments are short-sighted. The anti-western sentiments and the perceived superiority that the Russian Orthodox Church installed in society continued even after peter the Great reduced organizational power. Serfdom and its repercussions also prevented Russia from becoming a democratic society. Prior to the Soviet era, Russian was stuck under the feudal system of serfdom. In 1547, Russia became a unified nation under the leadership of Ivan the Terrible (O’Neil, 2018, page 342). After uniting the country, Ivan became the first tsar, a term derived from Caesar and implemented the feudal society which would last in Russia for more than three hundred years until its demise in 1861 (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja, page 1075). This feudal system was remarkably hierarchical, placing the Tsar at the top, followed by the land owners and finally the serfs (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja, page 1075). This hierarchy established by the feudal system stayed alive for much longer in Russia than it did in the Western world. For instance, serfdom in England was obsolete in 1500 (Brodie, 2015). This is significant because while the Western nations were exploring and experimenting with democracy and capitalis m, Russia was stuck in a feudal hierarchy that was incompatible with democracy. The length of time that it took to rid Russia of serfdom also had a cultural impact. This became obvious when serfdom was eliminated in 1861 when the serfs were given land and some basic freedoms. This emancipation resulted in a seventeen percent improvement in agricultural production, improved nutrition as well as a significant increase in GDP (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja, 2015 pages 1093-1103, 1113). That said, these improvements were marked by terrible mismanagement of land reform (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja. 2015, page 1113). The increased productivity that resulted from this was countered by a dependence on their former landlords and the inefficiency of that land reform (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja, 2015, page 1077). This discouraged people from allocating resources effectively and investing in their land (Markevic? and Z?uravskaja, 2015, page 1113). These contradicts the fundamental ideas of capitalism as proposed by Adam Smith, encouraging people to invest in their land and their i ndustries to improve the economy. As a result, people were discouraged from pursuing capitalistic ventures and accepting capitalism into Russian society. Capitalism has long been thought to be a postulate for developing democratic institutions, and without capitalism coming to fruition in Russia, democracy never fully developed. The failure of the Duma and the resulting Russian Revolution in 1917 also marked major roadblocks towards establishing democratic institutions. After failing to defeat the Japanese in a conflict regarding land in China, Russia staged a minor revolution resulting in the formation of the Duma, which acted as a legislative body (O’Neil et. al, 2018 page 344). While certainly a step towards a democracy, the Duma was marred by instability until its eventual collapse during World War One (O’Neil et. al, 2018 page 345). The failure of the Duma as a democratic institution was so bad, that it discouraged Russia from trying to establish other democratic institutions. Instead, the chaos that followed the fall of the Duma and during the early stages of World War One Lead to the steady rise of the Bolsheviks (D’Agostino, 2011, pages 37-48). Taking advantage of the weakness of the central state and anti-war sentiments, Vladimir Lenin allied with Leon Trotsky staged a coup over the provisional government and seized power over the country (D’Agostino, 2011, page 47-48). Instead of democratic values, Lenin established an anti-democratic authoritarian rule in the form of communism in the new Soviet Union (O’Neil, 2018, page 345-346). The Soviet communist values were antithetical to those of democracy. In fact, communism in Russia reverted to many of the same policies and systems that existed in Russia for most of its history like the restriction of movement and anti-western sentiments. Russia opted against a democratic society in favor of the staple hierarchical, controlling regime. This is significant because the revolution has eliminated the progress that Russia had made since the elimination of serfdom towards becoming a democratic society. Additionally, the revolution was motivated by anti-capitalist sentiments, with Lenin denouncing capitalism in many of his writings (D’Agostino, 2011, page 46). This meant that not only did the revo lution reject democratic institutions, but also rejected capitalistic ideals. This combination can explain why Russia did not become a democracy during the communist period of its history. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of Vladimir Putin further illustrate why Russia has not developed into a democracy. The Soviet Union was a deeply flawed system that resembled a more extreme version of the hierarchical society that existed prior to the Russian Revolution. An institution that, starting under Joseph Stalin, was built on fear and intense government subjugation of people left much of the population living in distress and impoverished (O’Neil 346-347). The stubbornness of soviet leaders after Stalin to desperate need for reform caused slow economic growth and corruption in the government (O’Neil, 2018, pages 347-348). When Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he put in policies that encouraged political openness and economic restructuring. These seemingly liberal ideas increased individual freedoms and were steps toward a democracy. These changes backfired, challenging state power and the Soviet Union collapsed (O’Neil, 2018, page 34 9). From the ashes of the Soviet Union rose two factions: the conservative communists and liberals lead by Yeltsin who pushed towards a democracy (O’Neil, 2018, page 349). After a failed coup attempt, Gorbachev lost his power and Yeltsin became the leader of the new Russian republic (O’Neil, 2018 page 349). Under Yeltsin, Russia endured a period of a few years with a feebly functioning democratic institution, with Yeltsin and parliament getting along and passing his reforms (O’Neil, 2018 page 349). Soon after, the parliament and Yeltsin grew apart causing the parliament to call for the impeachment Yeltsin (O’Neil, 2018 page 350). In response, Yeltsin scrapped the constitution, wrote a new one, and dissolved the parliament despite intense opposition (O’Neil, 2018 page 350). In 1999, Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin as the new president who swiftly eliminated any chance at becoming a democracy (O’Neil, 2018 page 349). The society that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union simply could not be considered democratic. The president has essentially total control with the legislative body and judicial system having almost no power (O’Neil, 2018 page2 351-356). The institutions that Yeltsin developed after the fall of communism have proven to be like the hierarchical society that has existed in Russia for all its history. With the power of the President, and the continued political suppression, there is little appetite for becoming a true democracy. Despite this, capitalism has taken a slight hold in Russia. However, the power of capitalism alone is not strong enough to oust the current regime and replace it with true democratic institutions. Russia is not a democracy. Without any checks and balances and an overpowering executive, Russia resembles an authoritarian regime. In studying Russia, it is hardly surprising. The Eastern Orthodox Christianity that has dominated Russia for most of the country’s history not only distanced themselves from the Western world but rejected Western ideas as heretical. These developments have forever distanced Russia from the trends that happened in the West, including the development of capitalism and democratic ideals. Russian institutions and society maintained its distinct hierarchy and subjugation of the masses in every form. Serfdom maintained its influence far longer than in other European nations, who were experimenting with democracy during some of this time. This hierarchy was further cemented when the Duma failed, and the Russian Revolution resulted in the communist Soviet Union. The resulting society had little appetite for establishing democratic institutions and the peo ple had little power to do so. What’s in the future for Russia? If their history is of any indication, the authoritarian regime under Putin and whoever his successors will be will most likely remain in place for a long time. There seems to be no indication that Russia is trending towards democratic institutions, despite its movement towards capitalism. This means that the Russian quest for democracy will have to wait. Bibliography Brodie, Nicholas D. â€Å"The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England: From Bondage to Freedom by Mark Bailey.† Parergon, vol. 32, no. 2, 2015, pp. 259–261., doi:10.1353/pgn.2015.0122. Bruce, Steve. Did Protestantism Create Democracy? Twenty Years of Studying Democratization (2007): 132-49. Print. DAgostino, Anthony. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1945. Praeger, 2011. e.V., Transparency International. â€Å"Corruption Perceptions Index 2017.† Www.transparency.org, Transparency International, 2017, www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017. â€Å"Freedom in the World 2018.† Freedom House, 8 May 2018, freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018. Kallistos, Bishop. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, 1997. Makrides, Vasilios N. â€Å"Orthodox Anti-Westernism Today: A Hindrance to European Integration?† International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, vol. 9, no. 3, 9 Sept. 2009, pp. 209– 224., doi:10.1080/14742250903186935. Markevic? A. M., and Z?uravskaja E?katerina V. Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom: Evidence from the Russian Empire. Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2015. ONeil, Patrick H., et al. Cases in Comparative Politics. Sixth ed., W.W. Norton Et Company, 2018. â€Å"Religions Christianity: Eastern Orthodox Church.† BBC, BBC, 11 June 2008, www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/easternorthodox_1.shtml.

Chemistry Unit Conversions

Sometimes its helpful to be able to print out problems and solutions to test your command of a subject. Here are some resources that you can use to study and practice conversions. Conversion Resources Some of the below resources are instructive and some are practice tests. Measurements and Conversions Quiz: Sample quiz on general chemistry knowledge, measurements, and conversions.Metric to English Conversions: These chemistry problems illustrate standard metric to English conversions.Metric to Metric Conversions Quiz: Test yourself on basic metric conversions.Temperature Conversions: Basic temperature conversion formulas.Temperature Conversions Test Questions: A collection of ten test questions on temperature conversion between Celcius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin.Moles to Grams Conversions Worksheet: How to convert moles to grams and vice versa.

Live Theatre Review Free Essays

The actors and director of The â€Å"Woman In Black† had complete power and control over the audience’s reactions and emotions. For our Drama GCSE we went to see â€Å"The Woman in Black†, on Monday 1st December 2003. The play was showing at the Fourtune theatre and was based on a book by Susan Hill; which was adapted by Stephen Mallatratt. We will write a custom essay sample on Live Theatre Review or any similar topic only for you Order Now The â€Å"Woman In Black† is about a middle aged solicitor called Arthur Kipps, who years earlier had lost an infant son following some eerie incidents in an English town. In hopes of getting rid of his personal demons and ghosts, he approaches a young actor to turn his written account into a theatre piece (re-enactment.) It shows all of the happenings with a recently deceased woman called Alice Drableau and her remote, mysterious house. The play explores the issues of the supernatural and things beyond the human world, such as ghosts and things that are invisible to the human eye; created by mime and the actors and audience’s imagination. I think that the play and the actors explored these issues very well, but I am not sure if they were explored in a believable way. I thought that the first half of the play was quite slow, tedious, and we weren’t drawn in so there wasn’t any control over us whilst watching it. However, when the play reached the second half the pace started to pick up, and tension was created, which drew us in and gave the actors control over our reactions. It was remarkable how far people in the audience were willing to go with their imaginations. They seemed to be really involved with the performance; I think that to a certain extent we all were. The play was structured with flashbacks and crosscutting which gave us a more in depth understanding of what had happened in the past to effect the future. The actors took us on a journey with them in whichever time they were in. We knew what time they were in, as the actors clicked their fingers towards the lighting technician each time. At first it didn’t seem to be part of the performance, later on when it occurred again it was clear that this was a repeated action and was necessary to the play. When actually thinking about it they were actors, acting as though they were acting a re-enactment. Quite confusing I thought. The lights changed from being bright when in the present, to being dim; and almost seemed like sepia tones to give that more ancient feel when in the past. I don’t think that this was done as well or creative as it could have been. The clicking to me just seemed odd and something that didn’t belong in the play, even though I can understand what they were trying to do. The lighting technician brought us back to reality and removed us from the performance; it drew us back out from the tense gripping story. The tension that was built up before these points suddenly dropped and then tension tried to build up again after that point. The actual changes between times eras was very fast, it was almost like there was a sudden change in tempo for that spilt second. The structure of the stage also affected the amount of space used by the characters. In the first half of the play we only saw half of the stage. The basic layout of it was rather boring. There wasn’t much space for anything and the layout just wasn’t interesting or eye-catching at all. As the play moved into the second half, the other part of the stage was revealed to us. It was an exciting change that spiced things up a bit. They suddenly had so much more space to work with. The â€Å"Woman in Black† has two main characters. Arthur Kipps played by Paul Stewart and the young actor who is actor Matt Holland. There was also the shadowed â€Å"Woman in Black† (Who is Alice Drableau the deceased,) although she didn’t have a huge role in the play. The two main actors portrayed many characters, with the usage of costume and their vocal techniques and tones of voices. I thought that they portrayed the different characters quite well but it definitely wasn’t believable for me personally. The actors changed costume in front of us (the audience), which once again drew us away from the drama. In my eyes. Once again, I realise that this was part of the piece, and if you think of it as an actual play, it was a great technique to use. I just found it rather off putting when I was actually getting into the drama; I realised that we weren’t seeing the story, we were seeing people tell us and re-enact the story. Some of the two men’s movements were very interesting and engaged us in the performance. Mr Kipps didn’t really use much movement when narrating. On the other hand when he took on the role of other characters and the young actor played a younger version of Mr Kipps, they used movement to the best of their ability. An example would be a simple motion of a horse and cart. The two characters mimed this very well in a believable way, showing how they would be when on a real horse. A great bit of movement that I found really effective, was when they pretended to be on a train. The actors were really aware of the space and objects around them. For example they used 2 briefcases as doors and a couple of chairs as seats, when walking through the imaginary train and we could tell instantly what it was. One of the men walked sideways along to show the compact space on a train, the two men also sat diagonal from each other which gave us the impression that there could have been mo re people on the train. The woman in black definitely had the ultimate power over the other characters reactions, and over us. She moved silently in and out drifting along in an almost Godley fashion and She made it look as though the dark stage was her shadowed sky; she was swooping down and scaring the prey. We were the prey, and we were shocked, in fact some people did let their emotions get the better of them. She wore pinnacled headgear, under a black veil. The black costume seemed as though it was to symbolise death and possibly evil. I would say that the actors had partial control over the audience and controlled the tension and atmosphere. The blackouts and lighting also helped create the woman in black’s fast movement on the rocking chair; she was furious, focused and very creepy in a psychotic sort of way. This drew us in further. A rocking chair normally moves slowly and contains a nice old person maybe knitting. It came as a huge shock when this happened, because it was such a huge contrast. There were two moments where there was a huge amount of control on the audience. The young actor approached a door this was concealed before and as it is now in light we are intrigued to know what is behind it. There was a lot of tension at this point and the use of pauses made the intense slow hand movements towards the door quite nerve-wracking. It was surprising how much this affected people. A great moment of tension which created a really strong atmosphere was when the young actor who was pretending to be Mr Kipps was sleeping. There was a long empty silence and a complete blackout. This was a moment that was really tense, we the audience were also in a total blackout, so they were putting us in the same situation. We were under control, as we couldn’t see anything, so we didn’t really know what was going on or what was going to happen. We were really involved. The actor also used a torch in the audience, whilst the whole room was black. The light was shone all around the audience, kind of like a spotlight. This whole moment, reminds me of childhood and being scared of the dark. Set, lighting, props and special effects I feel were all necessary to create a real sense of atmosphere. There were quite a few sound effects, to try and make the play seem as real as possible. Not only that, but some of the sound effects seemed to be symbolic. The sound of crows at the Graveyard, I’m sure this is a bad omen, death and a sign of evil. The sound of a rocking chair, which sounded like a heartbeat racing, to build tension and suspense. A double use. A music box in the Childs room, so innocent, yet the music seemed quite creepy when in the dark. Lots of them seemed to symbolise childhood, the innocence, and good. Because we knew what was going on and it was dark and tense, that goodness seemed almost possessed by evil. I thought that the sets were great and were concealed very well behind the gauze. It helped them to change the environment and setting quite efficiently without us knowing. From a graveyard which was furniture covered in white sheets maybe to symbolise ghosts, or when a person is dead them being covered in a sheet to be concealed. A sense of age and death. We saw the old house, which was covered in sheets again, kind of like an old house that hasn’t been lived in for years, derelict. They created long stairs for the characters to run up and down, that for me seemed to create a gradual build to something. There must have been something at the top of the stairs. Also a child’s room. A sweet little room, distorted from the innocence of it as soon as the woman in black steps in it. The play ended at a climactic cliff-hanger and it was gradually built up to a high point of tension. I personally didn’t find it a fear-provoking piece of drama although I know others did, and I can understand how it happened. People were sucked into the drama and its world and certain things didn’t remove them from it. I felt that all of the clicking and the people in the audience screaming just distracted me too much for me to actually enjoy it. I thought that they made a great effort with only two actors, it must have been a lot of hard work, and it used lots of great techniques. They definitely used role play a lot, when becoming different characters and acting out their situations. Marking the moment, using sound and light to emphasis something, such as the immensely tense movement towards the door; will he open it won’t he? Clear usage of crosscutting to show us different times they also used different lighting to show this. Narration, this kept informing u s of what was going on, Mr Kipps was telling us the story. I think that the playwright wrote the play to make the audience think about death, how it is a time of isolation. Maybe to make us remember a time when we were scared, something that everyone can relate to. Fear. I think he also wanted to tell a story that would excite people and to bring the typical ghost story to the 2lst century. People enjoy being scared because they get to use their imagination. Most of the play just really reminded me of childhood memories, something that everyone in the audience could relate to. Being scared of the darkness, that children’s room with the music coming from a doll, the excitement of discovering something, bag loads of curiocity.This was why we felt so involved, small parts of the play would have related to us as the audience. We all know it is safe environment/ atmosphere, and that the play isn’t real life, but there is still that sense of danger. The thrill of not knowing something. The idea that we have all been scared in our lives, something that we can relate to. The thing is that I thought most things were just too predictable. We knew something was going to happen, we could kind of guess what would happen; we just didn’t know when it would happen. How to cite Live Theatre Review, Papers