The challenge of unfulfilled promises has been an inherent feature of Russia’s modernization since the early Soviet period. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia failed to catch up to advanced countries in terms of the economic development of its major components such as labor productivity or living standards, despite the positive effects of industrialization, urbanization, and education; the main flaws of Soviet modernization were unavoidable and contributed to the collapse of Communism.97 The attempt to reform the Soviet system under Gorbachev was ill-prepared and based on many illusions and misunderstandings among the elites, so it is no wonder that its failure was perceived by Russian society as an unfulfilled promise. The turbulent period of post-Soviet reforms of the 1990s also had a controversial impact on public perceptions, and these major disillusionments were only partially compensated for during the period of rapid economic growth between 1999 and 2008. They also contributed to mass expectations of the “strong state” as the main if not the only provider of material well-being for Russians. The problem is that the end of this boom and the increasing troubles of the Russian economy further aggravated the perceptions of unfulfilled promises among elites and masses alike: the failure of Medvedev’s modernization campaign and the following wave of protests in 2011–2012 were clear evidence of that. To some extent, large-scale state propaganda in Russia and the tendency toward the country’s international self-isolation, although instrumental for the survival of the regime and its rulers, fueled these perceptions, contrary to Abraham Lincoln’s famous remark that one cannot fool all the people all the time. The primary danger of lost illusions relates to certain feelings that any modernization efforts in Russia (whether authoritarian or not) may be doomed nearly by default regardless of the contents and mode of conduct of policy reforms.98 Despite the fact that these feelings are strongly grounded in some interpretations of Russian culture, both historical and contemporary, one should avoid falling into the hopelessness of determinism and not see Russia as a country lacking any prospects for successful modernization.
The challenge of mediocrity results from the belief, quite widespread among many Russians, that Russia is a great and unique country, and it is worthy of extraordinary first-rate recognition by other states and nations because of its major past achievements in various areas, ranging from military victories to cultural glories. This retrospective understanding of Russia’s place in the modern world contributes to certain status-seeking efforts but is of limited relevance to a present-day modernization strategy. In many ways, Russia is an average normal country with numerous problems not so dissimilar to mid-developed states and nations. In a sense, the disjuncture between self-perception and reality is similar to the behavior of some teenagers. Drawing parallels with the distribution of pupils in a school class, Russia is neither an “A” student of world development (like Denmark) nor a complete “F” student à la Zimbabwe, but rather something of a “C” student. It is not much different from say, Argentina, one of the fast-growing economies and emerging democracies of the early twentieth century, which recently lost even regional leadership to a more dynamic Brazil after some decades of turbulent regime changes. Like some “C” students, Russia is more or less coping with its current troubles but cannot radically improve its grades. Like many “C” students, Russia simultaneously demonstrates an envy of more successful “A” students and juxtaposition of itself to them: despite the official rhetoric of fear and loathing of the West, Russians prefer to drive a Mercedes or a Toyota, use an iPhone or a Samsung, and want their children and grandchildren to graduate from Oxford or Harvard. The awkward combination of mediocrity and inadequate self-estimation affects not only Russia’s ideational agenda but also its institutional performance, as the country does little to improve its quality of governance—again, similarly to some “C” students, who invest little effort in elevating their poor grades.
This list of dilemmas and challenges is hardly unique, having been faced by several autocracies that found themselves between a rock and a hard place when they aimed at modernization and rapid socioeconomic development, on the one hand, and preservation of power of authoritarian rulers, on the other. As Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and his coauthors rightly put it, due to the primacy of politics over policy, autocrats often tend to sacrifice goals of modernization for the sake of their own political survival.99 Although such a prioritization is natural and such a statement is empirically based on solid evidence from several dictatorships, the connection between authoritarianism and modernization is not always substitutive, but rather, complementary. In other words, some authoritarian leaders pursue modernization-oriented policies simultaneously with building and fortifying their powers and try to achieve their goals in both areas. At first sight, such a dual-track strategy under the auspices of benevolent dictators sounds like a reasonable solution to the numerous problems of authoritarian modernization. However, the above-stated dilemmas and challenges impose certain constraints on implementing this strategy in real terms. It does not mean that autocrats always sacrifice modernization-oriented policies (as the logic of political survival presumes) but the goals and means of these policies undergo major changes. And yes, Russia is not unique in this respect: by the 2020s the authoritarian modernization agenda in Russia has been sacrificed for the sake of political regime stability. 100
In essence, these challenges and dilemmas put significant constraints on improving the quality of governance in Russia. On the one hand, proponents of an authoritarian modernization strategy aim at a delicate balance between achievements in growth and development and maintenance of the political status quo. On the other hand, attempts at improving the quality of governance may be risky for unity of the winning coalitions because they pose threats to the vested interests of rent-seekers of various kinds. It is no wonder that incentives for major policy changes that may challenge the politico-economic order of bad governance have become limited to short-term campaigns and have weakened over time. While in the early twenty-first century the post-Communist Russian experience may be considered an example of a coexistence of authoritarian modernization and bad governance under a dual-track strategy, after 2014 the agenda of modernization has been wiped away while persistence of authoritarianism remains the goal, thus strengthening the politico-economic order of bad governance.