Democracy must learn to defend itself.

The Cold War ended when the Berlin Wall fell down. The tensions, confusion, hostility and mistrust that came with forty years of conflict, however, did not dissolve in November of 1989. It lingered. It still lingers. This was shown when Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-210 in London in 2006 and, as a final act of dissidence, fingered Putin as the mastermind behind his murder. The murder of Litvinenko sparked a regeneration of the atmosphere of distrust, suspicion, and tension between Great Britain and Russia that hadn’t been seen since the Cold War. Since the summer of 2007, the relations between Britain and Russia have failed to mend, if anything, they have deteriorated further.

More recently than that, and closer to home in Canada, was the spy scandal in Ottawa when many Russian diplomats returned to Moscow after it was revealed a Canadian Intelligence officer had been leaking security information to a “foreign entity”. These are two incidents that have pitted western democracy against post-Soviet Russia. Despite the symbolism of the fall of the Berlin wall, and despite the collapse of the dictatorial communist regime, the Russian government and Russian democracy has failed to gain the trust of western democratic nations. In fact the West has come to view the Kremlin in Russia as a decadent regime, falling ever backwards towards the Soviet government that reigned over Russia for the better part of the twentieth century.

While it might feel like this suspicion is warranted, especially with Russian citizens flooding the streets of Moscow to protest what they feel is a corrupt government and a corrupted electoral process, crying dictator may be much like crying wolf. Creating a stable, functioning democracy is a time-consuming process. Expecting a nation whose political system shifted from monarchy to military rule to dictatorship over the span of a century to be able to shift yet again to a fully functioning democracy that meets the standards of the Western world in the span of two decades is asking a bit much. Especially considering that the Russian oligarchy ruled after the fall of the Soviet Union for a spell before the Duma was able to take control of Russia’s political process.

Amid the allegations that Putin is corrupt, that he is attempting to return Russia to a Soviet-style dictatorship, one must remember that he was first elected to the Russian presidency in 1999. A mere eight years after the fall of the Soviet Union. That is to suggest that even if he is not a perfect example of democracy in practice, he is at least a step in the right direction.

Fully functioning democracy is not going to be accomplished overnight, and considering the political and societal system Vladimir Putin grew up in, it is hardly surprising that the transition to fully functioning, stable democracy has been made in baby steps. Yes, Putin’s continued time in office can be considered questionable. He served two terms as president before nominating Dmitry Medvedev to replace him as his final term came to an end. Upon Medvedev’s appointment to the presidential office Putin was appointed to the prime minister’s office with every intention to return to the head of his party once he was able to through Russia’s electoral legislation.

Since the process of elections began, Russian citizens have taken notice of the tendencies and practices of their government like they never have before. They have noticed questionable practices and questionable election results. More importantly, they have questioned these practices and results. The Russian people are no longer passive about the country’s political process. They are taking notice and standing up for what they feel is their democratic right. The people of Russia have been politically active and vocal en masse in a way they haven’t been since they demanded change in 1991. They are aware, they are empowered, and they want to be listened to. This is the next big step in Russia’s democracy, not the actions or intentions of Vladimir Putin.

The legitimacy of Putin’s role in Russian democracy is questionable, the timing of the revelation that an assassination plot on his life has been foiled suspicious, and the integrity of his democratic ambitions uncertain. However, he is not the key to functional, stable democracy in Russia. He is nothing more than a political head, a representation of society’s mood and beliefs. It is the people of Russia that are key. They are the ones that will bring democracy to their country as they see fit. The thousands of people flooding the streets of Moscow in political protest are proof of this.