The main purpose of the following evaluation is to fully compare and contrast the Russian and the American presidencies. The Russian presidency is a far more recent incarnation than its American counterpart, which came into existence shortly after independence from Great Britain was gained. From its earliest days the American presidency had limits placed on its functions and powers. There are various notable factors that explain the differences that are contrasted sometimes sharply when the Russian and American presidencies are compared to each other in depth. Americans frequently contend that they have a long standing tradition of liberal democracy instead
of autocracy, which is an obvious area for finding stark contrasts with the Russian Federation and the authoritarian tendencies passed down from the Romanov dynasty and also the Soviet Union. Personalities as much as constitutions can decrease or increase the differences (and sometimes the similarities) between both presidencies.In contrast to the Russian presidency that was not introduced until 1991 shortly before the sudden death of the Soviet Union, the American presidency is over two centuries old and an integral part of the United States constitution. The presidency in conjunction with Congress as well as the Supreme Court forms the centre of the federal system (Palmowski, 2008, p. 701). Thus there is a major age gap between the Russian and American presidencies, although differences go deeper than that, it is a useful starting point. The Americans have had time to make sure that their constitution and their federal institutions are fully functional, and not subject to bouts of autocratic presidential rule (Woodruff, 2005, p.75).
Unlike the Russian presidency, which is within a polity subject to higher risks of instability and dictatorship, the American presidency is part of a stable constitutional system that protects the human rights and safety of its own people. The Russians had the unenviable task of trying to nurture liberal democracy from unpromising foundations, which have had an impact on how the Russian presidency has turned out so far (Palmowski, 2008, p. 589). Culturally the Russians seem to regard themselves as being vulnerable if they do not have a strong leader or single party rule, they would prefer order ahead of liberal democracy. Besides the early to mid 1990s brought a great deal of social and economic suffering for the bulk of the Russian population and the country's constitution and the presidency of Boris Yeltsin did little to reduce their burdens (James, 2003, p. 395). The Russian presidency comparing badly with its American counterpart in that important aspect of achieving a truly democratic form of government (Grant & Ashbee, 2002, p. 114).
Therefore United States presidents irrespective of whether or not they wish to have operate inside the political framework put into place by the federal constitution, by and large they indeed do so (Palmowski, 2008, p. 700). The American founding fathers purposely designed that constitution to have a complex system of checks and balances in order to prevent any of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the national government dominating the other two branches (Eatwell & Wright, 2003, p. 70). Unlike the Russian presidents, arguably American presidents have not been able to subvert or simply ignore their respective constitutions, not even Richard Nixon (Grant & Ashbee, 2002, p. 110). It is constitutionally possible for the president to be removed from the Oval Office, should two – thirds of Congress vote in favour of impeachment. No president has been impeached although Nixon resigned before it happened to him (Ward, 2003, p. 320). That bears testimony to the staying power of the system brought in during the 1780s (Spiller et al, 2005, p. 10).
The American presidency in other words has carefully defined boundaries to its powers and prerogatives that Congress and the Supreme Court are meant to ensure are not in any circumstances exceeded, or totally disregarded. There is little scope for any president to abuse their position, although some of the clandestine activities of the Central Intelligence Agency have offered opportunities to bypass Congressional restrictions in foreign policy areas (Duncan & Goddard, 2005, p. 257). Take for example the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the Tonkin Bay incident, and the Iran – Contra affair (Spiller et al, 2005, p. 280).
The American president as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces has the ability to deploy military units anywhere across the globe yet they have to take into account that Congress controls military spending and has to approve declarations of war. It is not surprising then that presidents have resorted to covert military operations Grant 7 Ashbee, 2002, p. 15). Russian presidents have fewer problems in the deployment and the use of combat units at home or abroad. Russian presidents are not overly concerned as to whether or not their forces kill civilians or abuse human rights, when the Americans would claim that they always try to limit collateral damage as they term it (Palmowski, 2008, p. 590).
Over all the House of Representatives and the Senate will oppose or support the incumbent of the White House to varying degrees that often depends on whether or not they are controlled by the same party from, which the president actually comes from (Duncan & Goddard, 2005, p. 251). In Russia particularly during the presidency of Vladimir Putin the Duma was usually under the firm control of the government. When members of the opposition went too far in opposing him they faced repressive measures, and his policies were fully implemented in any case (Palmowski, 2008, p. 590).
A Democrat controlled Congress can restrict the policies of a Republican president or vice versa. Presidents have been able to operate when Congress has been controlled by their rivals, for instance Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Russian leaders unlike American presidents have the scope to resist limits being placed upon their powers, they have a stronger constitutional position than the Duma does (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 53).
The United States Supreme Court might not oppose or support the American presidency to the same extent as Congress does, yet it can and has provided legal solutions to disputes involving Congress and the White House. The court is there to make decisions on issues to ensure that the decisions or policies of the president and the proposed legislation of Congress do not contravene the constitution. The court is intended to diffuse political tensions, deter authoritarian decisions, and preserve national unity. In times of national crisis or during constitutional disputes it is there to maintain the balance within the American polity (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 227).
United States Presidents nominate candidates to become Supreme Court judges yet these nominations have to be approved by Congress. Generally new judges are only nominated when existing members either die or retire. It has become usual practice for members of the Supreme Court to be divided between those with Democratic, Republican, or independent perspectives to prevent the body become biased either in favour or against the White House and Congress. The perceived political autonomy and neutrality of the Supreme Court can be useful if it has to declare any new legislation from Congress or policy introduced by the president. Such action has been taken when the judges considered it to be required (Grant & Ashbee, 2002, p. 10). During the 1930s it even went as far as blocking large segments of the New Deal legislation, when its members deemed that the president should not intervene so widely in economic matters. Conversely favourable Supreme Court decisions contributed to the achievement of full civil rights for African Americans to ensure that the legislation drawn by president and Congress were enforced across the country (Ward, 2003, p. 280).
However Russian courts lack the status or the autonomy of the American Supreme Court, which critics of the Russian constitution claim strengthens the presidency at the expense of liberal democracy. The lack of a suitably neutral and independent Supreme Court could be arguably considered to be a feature inherited from the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union when the executive dominated government as an essential strand of maintaining a tight dictatorial grip on power (Jack, 2004, p.3). Courts and judges in Russia are not used to ruling against the actions and the policies of their government, and will not assume that they are safe if they did so. There is therefore little if no legal protection for Russian citizens that are opposed to their government (Service, 2003, p. 530).
An area in, which the Russian and American presidencies would apparently have much in common is that there are democratic presidential elections, although there are doubts about the legality of results in the case of Russia. In the Russian Federation the candidate with the highest over all number of popular votes is elected president (James, 2003, p. 397). Therefore the Russian voters should always end up with the most popular choice as president in office. On the other hand the American constitution sets out that the president is actually chosen via an electoral college instead of by a simple majority of the popular votes cast (Ward, 2003, p. 345). Generally the candidate voted into the White House by the electoral college is the same as the one with the most votes (Dean, 2004, p. 3). However that was not always the case as Al Gore gained more votes than George W Bush in 2000 but the latter was put into office after the Supreme Court decided that Bush had won the electoral college votes of Florida (Palmowski, 2008, p. 704).
Over all the 2000 contest was the closest fought presidential election ever, and thus far the only one in, which the result was decided through a decision made by the Supreme Court. It could be argued that the Russian presidential election process is (theoretically at least) more democratic than the American presidential process as only the most popular candidate can win the presidency. That is only theoretically as there is evidence from some Russian elections that parliamentary and presidential elections have been subject to high levels of fraud (White et al, 2009, p. 20). Furthermore it is fraud masterminded by sections of the Russian government itself. Doubts about open and fair elections are not the only indicators that democracy is in a poor state in Russia (Jack, 2004, p. 272).
Besides both the Russian and American presidencies been democratically elected in both countries successful candidates can only serve two consecutive presidential terms in office. In the United States this restriction was only introduced
after Franklin Roosevelt won four consecutive elections to the White House yet died shortly commencing the last one of them (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 228). The Russians put a limit on consecutive terms in order to prevent any president becoming a dictator, all be it an elected one (Freeland, 2000, p.15).By the early 1990s limiting the number of presidential terms to two consecutive ones was a fairly common one in the majority of states with republican constitutions. In Russia both Boris Yeltsin and his successor Vladimir Putin managed to win two consecutive presidential elections, whilst the latter became Prime Minister once again after his second term finished (Palmowski, 2008, p. 590). It is often argued that Putin still dominates the government of the Russian Federation even if Dmitry Medvedev is the actual president. The constitution has not formally been amended yet the Prime Minister is in full control because he makes use of borrowed presidential powers (White et al, 2009, p. 301).
Arguably neither liberalism nor democracy have had long – term existences within the Russian Federation, consequences of the country's former imperial and communist regimes. Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin themselves were products of the Soviet Communist party. This notable lack of liberal democracy in many respects makes a significant contribution to the differences between the Russian and American presidencies (Jack, 2004, p. 4). Whilst the Russian Empire (briefly, for its last twelve years) and also the Soviet Union had constitutions in both cases the executive completely dominated the legislature as well as the judiciary. The imperial and communist regimes were not interested in promoting the political forms of liberalism, just reducing opposition to insignificant levels via censorship, imprisonment, and ultimately executions (Service, 2003, p. 531). When Boris Yeltsin was the Russian president the law courts and the Duma exercised more autonomy than they had ever done before yet it came nowhere near matching the checks and the balances featured for so long within the American constitution. Yeltsin was convinced that the law courts and the Duma were more independent from the presidency than was necessary (Meir, 2004, p. 12).
Without a doubt Yeltsin did not intend for the Russian presidency to loose power to the Duma and to the judiciary but did so due to his own ill health (hindered by heavy drinking), and the even poorer state of the Russian economy as it adjusted to the end of wholesale state ownership (Freeland, 2000, p. 14). The Russian government acting on Western advice was convinced that it had to implement severe reforms to move away from the collapsed Soviet centrally planned economy, and the other social and economic consequences of the Soviet Union's disintegration. These reforms were also intended to break any surviving aspects of the communist economic system, and strengthen moves towards liberal democracy (Meir, 2004, p. 35). Ordinary Russians disliked the reforms further as they suffered whilst those close to Yeltsin grew rich due to corrupt practices and bribery. Hand in hand with corrupt government officials and the newly enriched went widespread ineptness within the constantly changing administrations (Politkovskaya, 2001, p. 5).
Domestically and especially abroad Yeltsin at first had a reputation for promoting liberal democracy in Russia particularly after he defied the hardline Soviet military coup of August 1991 that signified that the days of the Soviet Union were numbered (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 490). However when in office Yeltsin did not promote democracy as much as he sought to promote capitalism. The social consequences of economic reforms were dire leading to realistic fears that the communists and the ultra – nationalists would gain power (Woodruff, 2005, p. 371).
The more liberal minded Russians backed Yeltsin's re – election in 1996 because the other candidates were less likely to bring about liberal democracy. Added to the dire state of the Russian economy Yeltsin was faced with the prospect of Chechnya fighting for its independence. President Yeltsin was not reluctant to use force if or when his position was threatened, and did so against the Chechen fighters (Klein, 2007, p. 350). In the last year of the Yeltsin era the former head of the Russian secret service, the younger Vladimir Putin started to restore the government's authority. Unlike previous Prime Ministers Putin was not sacked and Yeltsin even resigned the presidency early to enhance Putin's chances of winning the subsequent presidential election (Jack, 2004, p.4).
The incoming Putin was determined to restore full presidential authority, and did so to such an extent that critics condemned his autocratic grip upon power. Under Putin the human rights situation within Russia worsened considerably with repression been justified by the need to crush the Chechen rising, as well as controlling other nationalities seeking their independence (Palmowski, 2008, p. 590). Although popular amongst many Russians the renewed war in Chechnya did arouse opposition in the Duma, and the more liberal sections of the media. Putin reacted by increasing levels of censorship, imprisoning opponents, and failed to find those responsible for a spate of the best known government critics being murdered, or dying in dubious accidents (Klein, 2007, p. 346). The Russian government was able to reduce American criticism of its human rights record by supporting United States efforts to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (Jack, 2004, p. 273).
Now the state controlled media does not dare broadcast or print information that the Russian government does not approve of. Heavy censorship levels, and the careful manipulation of the media are a return to the days when the Communist party misled, or aimed to mislead the entire population of the Soviet Union. Internal opposition and international non – governmental organisations regularly argue that personal freedoms , and human rights in contemporary Russia have been reduced to almost non – existent levels. The prolific use of propaganda and the fact that democratic elections are prone to state sponsored fraud makes a mockery of claims that Russia is a liberal democracy (Klein, 2007, p. 348).
No American president could hope to match the repressive measures frequently employed by the Russian government especially under Putin and Medvedev even if they seriously considered doing so. Furthermore, the American presidency could not achieve such wide ranging control of the media although the White House does attempt to present presidential achievements, or decisions in the best possible light (Klein, 2007, p. 352). The American media unlike its Russian counterpart can feel safe if it criticises the president or the government. Americans did accept some potential limits of their freedoms due to the greater threat of terrorism in their own country. Increased security measures were put into place after the 9/11 attacks yet the worst alleged abuses of human rights have been out on non – American citizens (Grant & Ashbee, 2002, p. 120). Abuses even torture has been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the infamous detention camp in Guantanamo Bay (Duncan & Goddard, 2005, p. 260).
Therefore in conclusion it has to be argued that there a greater number of differences than there similarities when the Russian and the American presidencies are compared to each other. If these two presidencies are examined together at a superficial level then they would apparently have more in common with each other than if the comparison is undertaken upon a wider basis. Theoretically at least the differences between the Russian and American presidencies are less pronounced than they are at the practical level, mainly due to Russia been less democratic in reality than it is constitutionally, especially as presidential powers have been used to repress opposition within the Russian Federation.
The American presidency has been around for more than two hundred years prior to that of its Russian counterpart, and therefore its holders have had less opportunities to alter the constitution or increase the amount of political power, which they command. In many ways it has been the American constitution's emphasis upon the maintaining of checks and balances that has prevented any president from raising their powers illegally, or successfully subverting the federal system of government for their own benefit and the detriment of all American citizens. The formal separation of constitutional powers with checks and balances have undoubtedly played their part in maintaining the stability of the United States, perhaps at the expense of slowing down the decision – making process. The American presidency not only works due to the boundaries set in the constitution, it also functions well because the United States has a long history of been a liberal democracy.
In a bleaker contrast, Russia and its presidency have only led an independent existence since the end of the Soviet Union some twenty years ago. Human rights, liberalism, and democratic values are all relatively new to Russian soil, with illiberal tendencies generally having much stronger foundations inside Russia. Russian and Soviet leaders have been almost overwhelmingly been autocratic, if not down right authoritarian. To a large extent then the constitution reflects the Russian quest for strong leadership, as opposed to the establishment of meaningful liberal democracy instead of an autocratic presidency. Russia was arguably a more open country under Yeltsin than it is now yet that was due to his bouts of illness, corrupt practices, inept policies, and economic crisis. As president Putin reversed all the moves towards political liberalism whilst concentrating considerable powers in the presidency itself.
Bibliography
Dean, J W, (2004) Worse than Watergate - the secret Presidency of George W. Bush, Little, Brown and Company, London
Duncan R & Goddard J, (2005) Contemporary America 2nd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke
Eatwell R & Wright A (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London
Freeland, C. Sale of the Century – The Inside Story of the Second Russian Revolution (2000) Little, Brown and Company, London
Grant A & Ashbee E, (2002) The Politics Today Companion to American Politics
Hobsbawm, E (1994) Age of Extremes, the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, Michael Joseph, London
Jack, A (2004) Inside Putin’s Russia, Granta Books, London
James, H (2003) Europe Reborn – A History, 1914 – 2000, Pearson Longman, Harlow
Klein N (2007) The Shock Doctrine, Penguin, London
Meir, A (2004) Black Earth – Russia after the fall, Harper Perennial, London
Palmowski J (2008) Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary World History, Oxford Politkovskaya (2001)
Service, R (2003) A History of Modern Russia from Nicholas II to Putin, Penguin, London
Spiller J, Clancy T, Young S, and Mosley S (2005) - The United States 1763 – 2001 Routledge, London
Ward G, (2003) The Rough Guide History of the USA, Rough Guides Ltd, London
White S, Sakwa R, & Hale H E, Developments in Russian Politics 7, Palgrave, Basingstoke
Woodruff W (2005) A Concise History of the Modern World, Abacus, London
