Differences Between Russia And Iran

The Transcontinental Caucus Zone is dominated in the resources and minerals that could sustain several economies. However, even with the abundance of natural resources available to the Caucus region, the area continues to fail to reach its economic potential due to political and social turmoil. Russia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan are of particular interest due to the nature of their territorial size and political influence in the Caucus region. The political and social stability of Russia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan are an essential part in determining the future of the Caucuses. Each country’s style of government will be addressed, as well how that government developed to its current state. Additionally, an examination of the relationship between the people and governments in each country will aid in drawing conclusions about their future success and the success of the entire Caucus region.

The Modernization efforts undertaken by the leadership of Iran and Turkey after World War I share numerous similarities across ideological, and social lines. Both countries shared and benefitted from strong social identities, and resistance to outside influence. While these countries were unified using comparable methods, they were also exploited to further the individual goals of both countries? respective leaders.

In this article he compares the forms of government in other countries, including China and Russia to the current government in the United States. Russia and China are the countries he chose to work on because he describes them as the “two most important countries in the world that are not liberal democracy” (Zakaria 121). Throughout time, both countries have tried to make their economy better by making efforts to change. When a country is trying to change, they either start with their politics or economics.

Governments were created as a way to oversee groups of people and to serve as a source of protection from threatening forces. However, all governments are not the same as there are various categories of administration. These include democracy, theocracy, communism, republic, dictatorship, monarchy, and fascism. The two types of government that will be discussed in this research paper are a republic and a communist style of governing. As these are two very opposite branches of ruling, the similarities between them will be few and far between. The differences will range from education, religion, and economics with extreme variations in each category.

Introduction During the 90’s it was not uncommon to find various nation trying to increase their power, gain more influence or even expand their territory. From Hitler’s governed Germany to the United States of America; all the great nations tried to strive for growth in various aspects that were beneficial to their development. Thus it should come as no surprise when one of the leading powers at some point in the 20th century; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union or USSR) tried their uttermost to expand their control and influence. However in order to gain such control, not only did such nations have to be quite sound in every aspect of the government but they needed to have quite an amount of allies.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world watched Russia closely as the largest country remaining from the former superpower built itself into a democracy. However, within a short amount of time, Russia has slipped into competitive authoritarianism, giving much of the governmental power to its current president, Vladimir Putin. In contrast, another semi-presidential system, the government of France, is a strong democracy. France’s government has been largely successful since the creation of the Fifth Republic in 1958 and the most recent constitution. In addition to this, the roles of the president and prime minister have been balanced and checked since President Charles de Gaulle stepped down in 1969. These two countries, while sharing the same basic political skeleton, are vastly different in power division and, ultimately, the success of democracy. Unlike France, Russia’s democracy slid into competitive authoritarianism because of the overpowering amount of unchecked power the president has.

It was interesting to read about the six points of totalitarianism; an official ideology, a single, disciplined party, terroristic police control, party monopoly of the mass media, party control of the armed forces, and central direction of the economy (Roskin 255). Russia shows these characteristics in a few distinct ways. The population cannot criticize Putin on his militaristic choices, as well his Syrian adventure. Russia also shows authoritarian characteristics, which consists of a dictator monopolizes politics (Roskin 255). Putin shows authoritarian characteristics as well, with most of the media supporting Putin and the citizens not being able to criticize Putin for his militaristic moods.

Although the different states exist, there exists subsequent and distinct rules and regulations in each state governing the operations and legal matters. Nevertheless, the separate states have similarities in sections such as the human rights and the overall appointment of the president with specifics in term period. Likewise, there are similarities governing citizenship and amnesty issues and the involvement in international trade matters.

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

The constitutions of the United States and the Russian Federation were written half a world and more than two hundred years apart and seem to have very different political goals in mind. In face of these facts, United States and Russia constitutions are very similar on many levels. Each of the constitutions provide a framework for nationwide governance of a diverse group of states, regions and ethnicities that wish to be acknowledged sovereign. Both constitutions established a central federal government with three independent branches— executive, legislative, and judicial. Each of the constitutions provide for a bicameral type legislature: a small upper house consisting of two representatives from each colony or region, and a large amount of representatives elected by popular ballot in the lower house. Also, both constitutions reject the English system of direct parliamentary control over the executive branch. Instead, both the American and Russian president are elected by nationwide ballot, separate from the elections for the legislature; and the president’s authority

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.

The World State’s methods of achieving uniformity parallel the various practices that totalitarian government’s practiced throughout the 20th century. Totalitarianism became popular practice around the world throughout the 20th century. Totalitarianism is defined as ‘to designate a political regime whereby the government controls the totality of social life’ (Maier, 311). The World State’s government falls under this definition of totalitarianism because the World State exercised control over the totality of its citizen’s social life in order to maximize the citizen’s consumption, loyalty, and productivity.

The Political Past, Present, and Future of Russia Russia never associated as a democracy in anyone's mind. It had always

Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.