Russia: From Empire to Putin
What we need to understand about Russia’s history of autocracy
It is crucial for us to understand how the vast historical and cultural differences between Russia and the Western democracies can impact the filters through which each side views issues of national interest and sovereignty. In many fundamental ways, we think in very different languages — and we still have many serious issues between us that must be resolved.
Russia’s political history is a study in contrasts — the absolutism of the Romanovs, the radical upheaval of the Bolsheviks, rigid Communist Party rule, and a failed experiment with democracy before returning to authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin.
At the heart of this trajectory lies an elemental divergence from the Western-world’s slow, but inexorable, evolution toward representative government. A key factor shaping Russia’s unique path is its persistent reliance on a coercive secret police apparatus, which has loomed over its political life from the Tsarist Okhrana to the Soviet KGB and today’s FSB.
From the Romanovs to the Revolution — coercion as state policy
The early Romanovs inherited a vast, unwieldy empire where central authority was essential for control. Russia’s governance relied heavily on a rigid autocracy, suppressing dissent through mechanisms like the Okhrana, the secret police of the late 19th century, which infiltrated and neutralized political opposition.
By 1917, the weight of war, economic failure, and social unrest led to the collapse of the monarchy. The Provisional Government that replaced Nicholas II sought a democratic transition but was ill-equipped to manage the chaos. Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized this moment, using violence and a message of class struggle to install a new form of authoritarian rule.
The Soviet era — the omnipresent state
Lenin’s victory in the Civil War cemented a single-party state with a new secret police force — the Cheka — dedicated to suppressing opposition. Successive Soviet leaders expanded its power — Stalin’s NKVD orchestrated mass purges, and the later KGB perfected surveillance and ideological control.
The Communist Party ruled unchallenged, employing a mix of ideological indoctrination, economic control, and brutal repression. Unlike the gradual expansion of democracy in the Western-world — where institutions like England’s Magna Carta and constitutional governance fostered accountability — Russia’s governance remained centered on strong, often ruthless leadership.
Gorbachev — the failure of democracy in Russia
By the 1980s, Soviet stagnation and economic decline forced Mikhail Gorbachev to introduce reforms — glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). However, transparency undermined the Party’s legitimacy, and in 1991, the USSR collapsed. The once-feared KGB was dismantled, and Russia experimented with democracy.
Yet, Russian democracy was built on weak foundations. The 1990s under Boris Yeltsin saw economic collapse, rampant corruption, and a chaotic political system vulnerable to manipulation. Western-style democracy never gained deep roots, as it was associated with instability and loss of status.
Putin’s Russia — the return to autocracy
Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, restored centralized control by dismantling democratic institutions, curbing press freedoms, and reviving the security apparatus under the FSB. The assassination of dissidents, imprisonment of political opponents, and state-controlled media became hallmarks of his rule.
For the Russian public, stability and national pride under Putin outweighed democratic aspirations. Unlike the Western world, where democratic governance is deeply embedded in political culture, Russia’s historical norm is strong, centralized rule.
Western democracies are often perceived in Russia as chaotic, hypocritical, and interfering — particularly given NATO expansion and perceived Western meddling in former Soviet states — that is, as deeply annoying.
A culture shaped by power and coercion
Unlike Britain or the United States, where constitutional governance evolved to limit state power, Russia’s political culture has been shaped by repeated cycles of coercion and control.
The idea of an independent judiciary, a free press, and robust civil liberties has never really taken root. Instead, Russians have historically placed trust in strong rulers to navigate crises, even at the cost of personal freedoms.
While Western democracies champion individual rights, Russians often view the state as the ultimate arbiter of national destiny. This divergence explains some of the enduring tensions between Russia and the West, shaping global politics in the 21st century.
The naive assumption — that everyone thinks the same way — is extremely dangerous in this context.
Both sides see the world through our own cultural biases. The West runs the risk of accidentally encouraging Russian actions inimical to Western interests — or accidently prodding the Russian Bear into even more aggressive behavior.
Ignorance of Russia’s reality is definitely not in the West’s best interests.
