Low Self-Esteem
Conventional wisdom in the West says that post-Cold War Russia has been a disastrous failure. The facts say otherwise. Aspects of Russia's performance over the last decade may have been disappointing, but the notion that the country has gone through an economic cataclysm and political relapse is wrong--more a comment on overblown expectations than on Russia's actual experience. Compared to other countries at a similar level of economic and political development, Russia looks more the norm than the exception.
To the Editor:
Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Treisman ask an important question at the end of their compelling article ("A Normal Country," March/April 2004): "So why the dark, at times almost paranoid, view" of postcommunist Russia among Western observers? But an important factor missing from their list of explanations is the overwhelmingly dim outlook of Russians concerning the state of their own country.
During my frequent visits to Russia in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, I consistently encountered Russians -- from cab drivers to businessmen to scientists -- who energetically challenged my optimism about their country's future. They spoke of rampant corruption, dark political conspiracies, and the likelihood of a civil war or fascist takeover. No wonder these cataclysmic views made their way into American newspapers and academic journals. Russia watchers in the West frequently base their judgments on Russian sources and often adopt the viewpoint of their Russian friends and colleagues.
Moreover, one legacy of the Cold War is that Russians themselves compare their country to the United States, rather than to other middle-income countries. Russians would not be encouraged by the fact that their country compares well with Brazil or Argentina -- indeed, they would find the comparison insulting. Rather, they like to say that postcommunist Russia is "just like Chicago in the 1930s." In the minds of our Russian friends, the world remains bipolar long after the Cold War.
Golfo Alexopoulos
Associate Professor of Russia/Soviet History, University of South Florida
Related
For the second time since World War II the United States must make historic choices about dealing with the Soviet/Russian challenge. This time the issue arises from the collapse of the former enemy, and the new geopolitical situation is a mix of enormous opportunity and tremendous danger. As before Russia may well be central to the future of world politics and, as before, in this realm there is no substitute for American leadership.
Conventional wisdom in the West says that post-Cold War Russia has been a disastrous failure. The facts say otherwise. Aspects of Russia's performance over the last decade may have been disappointing, but the notion that the country has gone through an economic cataclysm and political relapse is wrong--more a comment on overblown expectations than on Russia's actual experience. Compared to other countries at a similar level of economic and political development, Russia looks more the norm than the exception.
Despite apparent anarchy, Russia is passing three important tests for establishing a democracy. The military is acquiescing in the new democratic order, the old managers of the economy are losing their political grip, and the new regime has come to embody patriotism and legitimacy in the mind of the populace. A fledgling Russian republic may succeed where the Weimar Republic failed.
