What Should Russia Do?

I answered a question on the Internet about what Russia should do by 'punting'. I said I didn't know enough about Russia to say. But, I do know a bit about political systems (living in the first Democracy), so I have two cents to offer anyway.

While not an expert on Russia's affairs, I can point to historical events and to our own American political and economic systems.

First suggestion I would make is to take a couple of surveys/polls to find what the Russian people think of the current state of affairs (covering all of Russian life) and what they might want Russia to be like in a couple of decades. One part of this poll would be to discover the popularity of Russia's current political leaders, both in and out of government.

I would suggest such surveys/polls be done by experts in that field, but from another country which could be trusted to be both professional and objective.

I suspect there would be two major categories of interest: it seems there always are -- domestic economics and foreign affairs. I would expect domestic politics would also be very high on the list. Still these are quite broad categories.

Economically, Russia should focus on broadening its economy. Today it is pretty clear it's too focused on oil and natural gas. If there is a downturn or technological change away from fossil fuels Russia would pay a heavy price. They might want to discuss ways to change their economy with advisers from the west or from China (who have been making the same kinds of transitions as Russia). The Russian people are not only resilient, but capable of handling rapid changes, so I wouldn't expect that to be a problem.

Politically, the Russian soul urges violence or massive heart-break, but what they need is to do some emulation of successful Democracies around the world and find ways to be more representative of the interests of various groups. You can look at countries like India, Israel, Germany, The United Kingdom or America and see how mechanisms in our political systems create opportunities for various voices and for a balancing of interests in the lawmaking (the legislative), the law enforcement (the executive) and law adjudication (the court) using American parlance. Russians could well have very different ideas about what is appealing and they would have the advantage of "standing on our shoulders" to build a better system.

I would point out a couple of interesting situations and the consequences: in Israel they have both a Prime Minister (currently Netanyahu) and a President (currently Reuven Rivlin). Oddly, in 2009 or 2010 the popular vote went to Tzipi Livni, but she couldn't form a governing coalition, so the president gave the position to someone who could, Bibi Netanyahu. That's odd. In America we have a Senate (our legislative body is bi-cameral) which generally has a set of rules the members (senators) create. In our Constitution a majority is supposed to win votes, but in our past they created a rule called 'filibuster' which sometimes lets a minority of senators block legislation. Only recently that has been cut back and now it is only the Supreme Court of Appeals nominee vote which can be filibustered. Other positions or legislation cannot.

Each nation would have its own peculiarities. One of the biggest differences though is between a Parliamentary system and the American system where we have an independently elected president. Long ago even our senators were elected by state legislatures. We now elect them by popular vote within their states.

The point here is that a Constitution or other Primary Law Document should allow for amendment and the kinds of natural changes which occur in every society around the world.

Lastly on politics, I would suggest that the kind of political system which allows a lot of small political parties is fine for ensuring a multitude of voices in the legislative body, but it isn't as good (in my opinion) for forcing the kinds of coalition which enables a true majority to pick the national leader. I would suggest that a parliamentary system should take that into account and either limit the power of smaller parties in governing (so as to encourage more permanent coalitions) or perhaps a run-off for the presidency. In a run-off you have two votes: the first decides who the top two candidates will be and the second allows people to coalesce around one in particular.