Even in here in America you’ll find that most people aren’t really that concerned with the government taking away their freedoms as long as it can provide stability (e.g. as long as they can get terrorists). So I think the idea of yearning for democracy requires rather sophisticated, long-term thinking that is often elusive.

People in Russia, just like everwhere else, have a keen interest in their own economic security, and need to make sure they are able to put food on the table. Russia today is an unstable country at times, and this does lead to a certain amount of nostalgia at times for the security they felt they had in the olden days of the Soviet Union.

But, having experienced democracy (of a sort) which developed under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the general consensus I’ve heard has been that they would never want to abandon democracy, because of the extremely high importance they place on their own freedom.

I’m assuming that the people I’ve spoken to are a reasonably representative sample. Which does make it somewhat difficult for me to understand why there is such apathy about Putin’s current move away from democracy.

Maybe because it’s easier to notice that you don’t have enough money in your pocket than it is to identify when democratic freedoms are slipping away.

But does that make it less important? Unfortunately, I think the war on terror and American hypocrisy has turned the word “democracy” into a cliché. It’s almost marketed like a commodity that America manufactures and tries to sell to the world with crafty slogans, massive advertising and fabulous incentives for first time buyers. People get tired of it, especially when it doesn’t work as advertised. But the basic premise of democracy is simply government accountability. Ask those Tajiks whether governments should be held accountable for their actions (instead of asking whether they agree or disagree with flashy “democracy”) and I bet you’d get wildly different answers.

Of course food on the table is always most important; and I think practicality demands that democracy should generally be viewed as a goal instead of a means. But despite exceptions such as China the fact is that the average democratic country (including 3rd world) is more prosperous than the average non-democratic one. Getting to some sort of democracy is the tricky problem, but I think it should always be the goal.

I actually encountered a similar sentiment in Kazakhstan. One Russian girl (named Olga, natch) told me of how well off her family was under the Soviets, and how little they had now. Many, especially the Russians, spoke of Stalin and even Brezhnev with nostalgia, and of the future with dread.

It is of course difficult to draw many broad conclusions from such anecdotal evidence (and Abizaid’s article is really just anecdotes). But the way people perceive their environment is of paramount importance in crafting policy. The Bush administration’s failure to do that, rather than its philosophical foundations, should be more deeply considered.