qtasep 💛💙

How I Saw Democracy Die in Russia - and Why I'm Worried for the US Now

I vividly remember the sense of possibility in Russia around the year 2000. For someone like the 15-year old me, who had just become politically aware, it felt like we were leaving behind the chaotic 1990s and stepping toward something more stable and prosperous. That hope faded fast. By the time I left for the United States in 2011 to work as a mathematics researcher, my home country had morphed into a centralized, top-down regime where real dissent was nearly impossible.

I never imagined I'd feel the same uncertainty in America. Yet, last month, I recognize steps reminiscent of what I witnessed in Russia. I'm not saying these two systems are identical, but the playbook can look disturbingly similar: from consolidating power in the executive branch to undercutting institutional autonomy and controlling the media narrative. Below are a few concrete examples from early Putin-era Russia that shaped my political awakening - and why I'm feeling those same unsettling vibes here. The third point highlights the most striking parallel to the US today.

---

1. When Putin became president in 2000, a major institutional check on his power were the Russia's 89 regions (similar in status to the US states, at least officially). One of Putin's first major moves was to divide Russia into federal districts overseen by his own envoys. At first, people shrugged, saying it was just "reorganizing" authority. But suddenly, governors who used to be independently elected were effectively sidestepped by these presidential envoys. By 2004, direct gubernatorial elections were abolished altogether, replaced by presidential appointments.

I remember how quickly people went from thinking "This can't be a big deal" to realizing the regions had almost zero real power. It's a big lesson: once institutionalized officials become mere placeholders for the executive's will, you lose a critical buffer against unilateral decisions.

---

2. In the early 2000s, Putin quietly transformed the judicial system. Before 2001, federal judges were appointed by the president but needed a nod from the upper house of parliament (analogue of the US Senate). When that requirement was dropped, the president gained sole authority in appointing judges. In 2002, the status of judges was revised in the directions of increased salaries and expanded administrative controls through "qualification boards" who could dismiss a judge. These boards became more dependent on executive influence. Lowest-level judges used to be elected in some regions, but these positions were turned into appointments by regional authorities.

The result? Courts filled with people who were indebted to the Kremlin for their positions, salaries and careers. By the mid-2000s, if a high-level political issue landed in the courts, Kremlin made sure the ruling was favorable to the executive. It all happened subtly, but it was a major step in turning Russia into a state where challenging presidential power through legal means became virtually impossible.

---

3. Money is a powerful lever. In Russia, the national budget became a tool to enforce loyalty. Regions and industries that supported the president got timely funds; those that didn't saw budget requests stonewalled.

This is perhaps the most striking analogy to the US today. Recent attempts by the Trump administration to override “automatic” budget procedures in the Department of the Treasury resemble these tactics. Traditionally, Treasury disburses funds according to laws passed by Congress. Pressuring agencies to let the White House “manually approve” payments is not only impractical; it hints at a larger effort to politicize federal spending, bypassing established rules.

www.tgoop.com/qtasep/2999

478 viewsFeb 14 at 11:10

How I Saw Democracy Die in Russia - and Why I'm Worried for the US Now

I vividly remember the sense of possibility in Russia around the year 2000. For someone like the 15-year old me, who had just become politically aware, it felt like we were leaving behind the chaotic 1990s and stepping toward something more stable and prosperous. That hope faded fast. By the time I left for the United States in 2011 to work as a mathematics researcher, my home country had morphed into a centralized, top-down regime where real dissent was nearly impossible.

I never imagined I'd feel the same uncertainty in America. Yet, last month, I recognize steps reminiscent of what I witnessed in Russia. I'm not saying these two systems are identical, but the playbook can look disturbingly similar: from consolidating power in the executive branch to undercutting institutional autonomy and controlling the media narrative. Below are a few concrete examples from early Putin-era Russia that shaped my political awakening - and why I'm feeling those same unsettling vibes here. The third point highlights the most striking parallel to the US today.

---

1. When Putin became president in 2000, a major institutional check on his power were the Russia's 89 regions (similar in status to the US states, at least officially). One of Putin's first major moves was to divide Russia into federal districts overseen by his own envoys. At first, people shrugged, saying it was just "reorganizing" authority. But suddenly, governors who used to be independently elected were effectively sidestepped by these presidential envoys. By 2004, direct gubernatorial elections were abolished altogether, replaced by presidential appointments.

I remember how quickly people went from thinking "This can't be a big deal" to realizing the regions had almost zero real power. It's a big lesson: once institutionalized officials become mere placeholders for the executive's will, you lose a critical buffer against unilateral decisions.

---

2. In the early 2000s, Putin quietly transformed the judicial system. Before 2001, federal judges were appointed by the president but needed a nod from the upper house of parliament (analogue of the US Senate). When that requirement was dropped, the president gained sole authority in appointing judges. In 2002, the status of judges was revised in the directions of increased salaries and expanded administrative controls through "qualification boards" who could dismiss a judge. These boards became more dependent on executive influence. Lowest-level judges used to be elected in some regions, but these positions were turned into appointments by regional authorities.

The result? Courts filled with people who were indebted to the Kremlin for their positions, salaries and careers. By the mid-2000s, if a high-level political issue landed in the courts, Kremlin made sure the ruling was favorable to the executive. It all happened subtly, but it was a major step in turning Russia into a state where challenging presidential power through legal means became virtually impossible.

---

3. Money is a powerful lever. In Russia, the national budget became a tool to enforce loyalty. Regions and industries that supported the president got timely funds; those that didn't saw budget requests stonewalled.

This is perhaps the most striking analogy to the US today. Recent attempts by the Trump administration to override “automatic” budget procedures in the Department of the Treasury resemble these tactics. Traditionally, Treasury disburses funds according to laws passed by Congress. Pressuring agencies to let the White House “manually approve” payments is not only impractical; it hints at a larger effort to politicize federal spending, bypassing established rules.

BY qtasep 💛💙