MOSCOW, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- While both the American and Russian presidents are up for re-election this year, there is little doubt Russian President Vladimir Putin will be returned to office in March. However President George W. Bush's electoral fortunes are increasingly unclear with public confidence in his administration eroding.
Russia, most certainly, will not experience a "regime change," as the U.S. might. However, it appears both the countries are experiencing "changing regimes."
Putin was standing at Bush's side at Camp David, Md., last September when the American president stated, "I respect President Putin's vision for Russia." Since then, what amounts to a "cold peace" has overtaken U.S.-Russian relations. Both countries (and Bush and Putin, for that matter) have much more in common than most would care to admit, or are even probably aware of.
During the Cold War, many Western Soviet experts said the United States and the Soviet Union were actually, ideological differences aside, starting to resemble each other. This theory was called "convergence." In a nutshell, this was the idea that, regardless of ideology, whether it be one of democracies with market economies or one-party states with central economic planning, the forces of modernization were pushing the superpowers closer together.
Urbanization, higher levels of education, post-industrialization, consumerism and overall heightened social expectations, it was said, were lessening the ideological differences between the competing powers, as both had to deal with the same problems. Ideology, at the end of the day, was not enough to clearly differentiate the two supposedly different political systems.
Not surprisingly, the theory caused a storm among many academics, including those who had escaped or were thrown out of the Soviet Union and refugees from Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, as well as those in America's political establishment who defined their identity and even their very being as "anti-communist." The 20th century was an epoch about ideology, and the facts on the ground rarely moved those who had the power to determine the political fates of their own people and others across the globe.
This debate was at times heated, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War it became pointless. Many who were part of this academic and political debate have now fallen into a new ideological polarization into the categories of "globalization," led by changes in American society and the economy, and the belief the adoption or forced acceptance of Western institutions and values destroys unique cultures that have little in common with the West.
The latter ideological position is in effect a denial of the West's teleological definition of progress. This new debate will rage for a while as the world continues to adjust to the legacy bestowed by the end of the Cold War. However, the theory of convergence, with respect to the present U.S. and Russian systems, may be a topic worth reviving. It may have not carried much currency at the time, but the theory of convergence may have been right after all -- particularly in terms of how both the United States and Russia have changed since the end of the Cold War.
The Bush and Putin administrations are similar in many ways. In this new century, American and Russia political elites favor strengthening the state at the expense of civil society and democratic values. Bush will dispense with the U.S. Constitution if it conflicts against international terrorism. Putin's Kremlin can change the Russian Constitution overnight if it wishes.
Both regimes are militaristic and are even involved against similar enemies in the same part of the world. The United States has no problem with violating international law; it has shown contempt for international public opinion. Russia refuses to take advantage of numerous international institutions to resolve the continuing human catastrophe in the troubled republic of Chechnya. Both the United States and Russia have become international outcasts, to a degree, for these reasons.
Both Bush and Putin rely on their image as "regular guys," to a degree obscuring Bush's lifelong financial privilege and recasting Putin as a romantic pragmatist whose KGB career brings Russia's Soviet past in contact with its future. Both Putin and Bush portray themselves as above politics; Putin will not debate his opponents, Bush will spend tens of millions of dollars to paint his eventual opponent in November as un-American. Bush has stated the all too familiar political slogan, "You are either with us or against us." In so many words, this is Putin's approach to political dissent. Neither Bush nor Putin debate policy, both prefer to employ others to do the hard work of politicking.
In both Bush's America and post-Soviet Russia, there is an increasing convergence of governmental and economic elites. Few would probably contest that a privatization of American foreign policy has taken place when it comes to the restructuring of conquered countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. The deregulation of some American industries strongly appears to benefit those close to the Bush administration as well. The Kremlin's attack on some of Russia's largest companies and wealthiest individuals demonstrates that a market economy is accepted, but under conditions firmly controlled by the powers-that-be.
Foreign policy and business practices are not the only spheres in which Russia and the United States are looking more and more similar. Even the issue of the level and quality of civil society can at times be compared. Increasingly, the conventional media are being controlled by an oligarchy, some of the members of which are close allies of the regime.
Russia, for its part, makes little pretence to being a strong democracy, and that the electronic media follow the Kremlin's lead is obvious to all.
Obviously, there are also considerable differences. America is a rich and, still, economically dynamic country, while Russia is desperately trying to catch up with Portugal's standard of living. The United States has the ability to carry out an aggressive, even imperialist, foreign policy, while Russia does not have complete control of its own territory. Corruption exists at the top in America, usually at the high corporate level, whereas Russia's corruption can be found from top to bottom.
The Cold War is behind us, but the convergence theorists may be back in business.
The U.S. appears to be opting for a political system that will attempt to remain democratic. Russia is only now getting its house in order after the trauma of the Soviet collapse. Although Western politicians and journalists deplore Putin's own form of "perestroika," the Russian president can fall back on public opinion polls most world leaders can only dream of.
Putin's resurgent Russia is not particularly concerned what the outside world thinks -- not much different from America's attitude to international criticism. It is interesting both countries' treatment of the outside world does not unite them, actually its pushes them apart.
It is unfortunate for both the United States and Russia the term "regime change" is associated with forced political change. The peaceful "regime change" in Georgia has produce some hope that violence from outside parties can bring about a positive outcome. Georgia's example, hopefully, will be something the Kremlin will keep in mind when Ukraine and Belarus are faced with similar popular demands for political change.
(Peter Lavelle is a Moscow-based analyst and author of the newsletter Untimely Thoughts -- untimely-thoughts.com.)
