| How to Make Russia Even Better |
by "QuitGov"
Since the end of the Communist era in 1990, Russia has been one of the most desirable countries in which to live. There was, understandably, chaos at first but since Vladimir Putin has steered the society it has, among the world's countries, been a model to emulate. That's not to say it is perfect - no society under the rule of a government can ever come close to that - but that it is, in relative terms, admirable.
It has taken care of its own business. It has encouraged trade across borders. It has interfered forcibly nowhere beyond them. Internally, it has encouraged sober and honest living and has largely avoided the absurd and destructive modern behavioral fads that have marred countries in the "West."
When the relentless expansion of the originally defensive alliance called "NATO" moved in 2014 to incorporate Ukraine, which would place nuclear missiles within a minute's flight to Moscow, its government took action to ward off the obvious threat and when the Minsk accords were abandoned in 2022 and the Russophile regions of South Eastern Ukraine seceded, Russia stepped in to protect them. This was all well-justified defense.
The "Special Military Operation" succeeded at once in drawing Ukrainian forces away from the pending invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk, but foundered on the prevalence of "Javelin" missile systems that blunted the attack on Kiev, and the sinking of the flagship "Moskva." That setback has prolonged what could have been a short, swift war into the present quagmire that has claimed over half a million lives. Nonetheless, Russia has developed a military superiority but has not yet set about a total conquest of Ukraine, whose surrender is still awaited.
So much for the war. Now, could Russian society be improved? I think so, as follows.
Justice Communism Fertility International Relations Future
Russia's long history of absolute rule by a monarch was continued under the Communist dictators and has been inherited by the present democratic system; and the idea of justice has not been much reformed. Someone is accused of breaking the law, he is quickly condemned to a long prison term - even for relatively trivial offenses. This cries out for reform. Prison is barbaric, destructive and useless; and the present prevalence of "secret courts" from which impartial members of the public are excluded, is abhorrent.
There is no proper system of justice anywhere, because "justice" consists of restoring rights (to person and property) that have been lost or damaged; it is restorative or restitutional, not retributive. The idea of punishment by a third party (government) is replusive, yet commonplace.
As a first stage in needed reform, I suggest that the Russian justice system be brought up at least to the standard of those that are supposed to operate (but in recent years do not) in the UK and USA. That standard is nowhere better written than in the US Constitution, notably in its first ten Amendments called the "Bill of Rights."
First, the functions of writing laws and enforcing them are separate, except of course that those two Branches of government do still adhere to the same trunk. But it's institutionally difficult for the legislature to influence the judiciary.
Second, there are strict written limits on what police are allowed to do to a suspect or defendant. Those limits have been breached in recent years, but they are still there on paper, in theory; and it's those I commend to Russian reformers. For example no government agent is allowed to search anyone or his home, or to seize his person or property, without testimony from a specific witness to specified wrongdoing; that's Amendment Four. It's now violated daily, but that's still what it says. If an arrest is made, the subject is free to remain silent and must be reminded that he has that right. Those are good protections against police power.
Third, in court there is a presumption of innocence, until and unless a jury of his peers is convinced by evidence properly presented that the accused is guilty. A "peer" is an old English word meaning someone of similar standing in society, to the accused; not a judge or tribunal of experts in law. When juries were instituted in 13th Century England their primary expressed purpose was to nullify any law they found inappropriate for the case in question; so the jury is (in theory!) supreme even over the legislature, for the case they consider. This is a good protection against arbitrary government action, and professional judges detest it.
So in Russia, an impartial and powerful jury should be made the centerpiece of a reformed justice system.
This dreadful ideology caused incalculable suffering and deprivation to Russians for 70 years, and as far as is feasible without withdrawing freedom of speech, it needs to be eradicated. I see it therefore as ominous that a third of a century after it collapsed, Communists are still the second largest single Party in the Duma. That must end.
Of course, no opinions should be suppressed by law, including theirs; but certainly nor should any government funds support this irrational cult. Start by considering how its supporters come to be still around.
Naturally, the few who were doing well in the Communist régime would be reluctant to abandon their beliefs; but those are by now mostly retired or deceased. Something has kept Communism alive and attractive. I suggest the culprits are Marxist teachers in school and college.
Again, those people must not be outlawed! - but nor should they be paid by the government to continue indoctrinating the young. So they need all to be flushed out of the public education system. If after being fired they wish to found fee-paying, for-profit Marxist-oriented schools for parents to choose for their children, well and good; they should not be prohibited. But otherwise, no communist ideas should be commended, anywhere.
That reform will achieve that result in a very few years. It should be supplemented by a substantial influx of teachers who understand capitalism and freedom, which brought about the immense prosperity of the West, and who will convey those to young Russians.
This is a problem already receiving attention: the Russian birth rate is too low so the population is declining.
The temptation is for government to do something just as the Chinese one did some years ago when China had to opposite problem of too many people; it wrote a law called the "one child policy." Such force-based action must be firmly rejected. Words - advice - certainly, but actions: no. For example, contraceptives might be outlawed except when prescribed, or there might even be a government-run impregnation clinic! Entirely the wrong approaches.
Instead, find out why couples are having "too few" children. Use market research companies and make sure the surveys are strictly confidential. It may be found that typically, couples are not confident about the future, or are so heavily taxed that they think they cannot afford children. Whatever the result, if government can help by repealing some law, go ahead and do that. Or if it's found that government schools are encouraging girls to get jobs just like the boys, change the curriculum. Giving birth is of course only the start; the culture must accept that families are fun and the raising of children is rewarding, and if anything government does contradicts that it must be stopped.
To procreate is natural; humans grow our total population by 3% per decade. If Russians are the exception, there has to be a reason and no solution is rational until that reason is known.
Further, follow the example of high fertility in the West during the 1800s. Why did it happen? - because in the UK and US people discovered capitalism; they could work, save, invest and prosper. Their living standards were rising, due clearly to their own efforts, and no (or very few) laws impeded them. So they had large families.
Infant mortality was common, because medical science had yet to catch up with other aspects of prosperity, but still the population grew rapidly. My own grandfather was 13th of 13 children! - in a working-class family. He taught himself woodwork and bricklaying, and eventually became a prosperous builder. His elder brother John taught himself music and became conductor of a choir in his city, which became so good it performed once before the King.
A very promising way to increase the birth rate is to reduce abortions. Not, of course, by law and compulsion - but by using the market. According to Wikipedia, Russia has an abortion rate of 13.1 per 1,000 women per year, leading to 553,000 prematurely ended pregnancies. Assuming only a few of those are medically necessary, that's half a million children who could be added to the Russian population each year. Given that there are now about 1.4 million births per year, such an increase would be dramatic.
The method is very simple. People who oppose abortion get together in charitable groups and collect donations, then use the money to (a) persuade women planning to abort to change their minds, and (b) arrange for adoption by couples who so wish. No compulsion is involved. All the State has to do is to get out of the way; that is, repeal all laws that might make that procedure difficult.
Some pregnant girls might demand too high a payment; so be it, the method will not stop 100% of abortions. But it would stop the vast majority, and be 100% voluntary. Russia would set a fine example to the rest of the world, while usefully increasing its population.
Forced by the iniquitous embargoes or "sanctions" imposed by NATO countries against Russia, the Putin government was quick to pursue alternative trade arrangements and has done very well; as soon as 2023, economic growth was strong and contrasted with poor performance in Europe. Happily, the embargoes boomeranged.
However, I suggest that grand plans such as forming a block of alliances called "BRICS+" be treated wtih caution. Trade is always good, it always benefits both parties (otherwise it would not be practiced.) But to be tied to other countries with political obligations is ill-advised. Here are some obvious dangers for Russia's future, in BRICS+:-
Brazil is a country far away, rich in potential resources but poor in performance and currently riddled with socialist ideas, which are always destructive. Trade by all means, when advantageous, but beware "entangling alliances."
India is the world's second most populous but one of its poorest. Again, trade is always good, but beware investing heavily in the formation of new trade routes, through territory controlled by a third party (Iran) which while currently friendly, has very little culturally in common with Russia and could in future become hostile, even if it resolves its substantial internal, fractious disunity. Indian trade can be conducted by sea instead.
China is even more populous, and since Communism was abandoned (except in name) in 1980 it has made enormous economic progress, lifting standards of living for a billion people; an amazing achievement and a testimony of the power of free capitalism. Currently there is a good synergy with Russia; it needs fuel and can produce vehicles and other valuable products.
But China also needs space; its population density is 152/sq km (17 times Russia's) and Russia has space, particularly around Mongolia, to China's North. Traditionally China has not aggressed beyond its borders (except for Tibet!) but no guarantee exists to keep that policy in place for ever. Should relations ever sour between the two countries, Russia will be heavily exposed to loss of land.
South Africa is the wealthiest nation on that Continent, thanks entirely to its history as a colony to British and Dutch developers. Its present government has no better idea of keeping or building prosperity for the bulk of the people than any other black, socialist government in Africa, and has a record of dispossessing and killing thousands of white farmers; hardly a fit partner for a Russia that has experienced the horrors of Communism and rejected it. Rich in gold and diamonds, it may seem a good trade partner for Russia at present; but, like the others above, treat it with caution.
Europe will, hopefully, regain its senses and within a few years repeal all the vicious embargoes on Russia; its countries are close by, its culture is complementary and trade was developing well before the present troubles. Good relationships can and should be restored.
A first and important step would be to ensure that no tariffs or quotas or trade restrictions at all are operated by the Russian government, regarding trade across its borders with businesses in any country, including Europe. That would make Russia the first truly free-trade country for more than a century, and be a fine basis for prosperity.
Uniquely, Russian history has included substantial activity by anarchists - Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy and several others, often members of the aristocracy. None of them saw fully the feasiblity of a zero government society, but they came close. They started the process of re-thinking how people can best relate to one another.
Those still alive were all suppressed in the disaster of 1917, but now a century later the tradition should and can be revived. Anarchist thought has made a great deal of progress during the 20th Century elsewhere, notably in the USA, and Russians can readily get up to speed and perhaps become the first to implement a fully free society. That would certainly be a break with the long tradition of state power, but state power rests on a very flimsy foundation; either it comes from God (whose very existence has never been proven) or by delegation from the people (and nobody can validly delegate a power he does not possess.) So that break is long overdue.
A short summary of how freedom would probably function appears for example in The Anarchist Alternative.