Russia had elections in the 1990s. Elections are just one component of democracy [1]. Protecting the rights of the minority from the will of the majority and constraining the rulers within the law (i.e. the rule of law) were not features of Russia's heady days in the go-go 90s.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004...
But, yea, it's a EU country... in NATO and all that.. modern, democratic.. Long live democracy.
Like it or not, that's the only answer. A VERY strong, totalitarian leader who fully disregards his own people AND foreign interests, while having at least some interest in improving the economy of the country, no matter what it takes. And, sure, benefiting tremendously in the process, but if you ask me - well deserved.
Seriously tho. Did you notice a lot of Russians in Bulgaria recently? Living, buying property, being annoying? Why did you think they left Russia and come to Bulgaria? Couldn't stand the awesomness?
What Putin did all these years: spent oil dollars that suddently surged, increasing wages without caring for productivity. Invited millions of Muslim migrants from neighbouring countries while young/educated Russians were leaving. Demolished the remnants of elections system and separation of branches of governnment. He also lost Ukraine and had the best international strategy of buying allies for cash.
Democracy is an illusion, at best. It can't possibly exist as a system of government in the real world. And that's a good thing.
"90s" that you're referring too actually lasted around 7 years, from 1992 to 1999.
Putin is already full 17 years on his throne and there's no longer any point in blaming anybody other than himself in any shortcomings. It was enough time to do whatever he wanted. He wanted to build a kleptocracy and that he did.
> Putin has 80-90% support in the nation.
Putin says so.
> Around ~10k max in Moscow
Putin says so.
> i am writing that as liberal person
Why then are you repeating Putin's lies?
That's still the case, except there's just one dominant family, which to be fair has its benefits for the country. No, liberal democracy isn't a panacea for everything, but at some point the security vs freedom tradeoff fails and further reductions in freedom produce no security benefits, or any benefits at all to society.
Stasi had the same plans as did every other country in the Bloc. Some were fought off (Baltics, Czech), others are worked very well (Bulgaria).
Sounds kinda racist, when you think about it. Like we're lesser people or something, and can't enjoy basic human rights.
Democracy doesn't work in a lot of situations; this is not an inherent geographical attribute.
> it doesn't work in Russia also
Well, this has never been observed in Russia, so we'll never know.
> Liberal democracy is not panacea for everything.
Nobody claims this. But you can at least trust your neighbor not to turn you into the police because of due process. I'm that's not necessary in Russia because the government of course never commits human rights violations or makes mistakes.
Democracy requires, foremost, a strong civil society, the rule of law, and the protection of individual and minority rights.
Besides, after you control all the important media for at least last 10 years, it's not a surprise that people in Russia think what they think. They will get robbed and abused again and again and think it's good for them.
People are not as stupid as you think they are. That's what democracy is about, like it or not.