ABSTRACT
The controversy over whether Russia actually possesses the cultural and historical prerequisites for democracy and liberalism is tackled with penetrating insight by the politician and former policy advisor of the Gorbachev government Alexander Yakovlev in his book Striving for Law in a Lawless Land (Yakovlev 1996). Yakovlev uses his insights and experience of decision-making in the perestroika era in order to analyse the chances of Russia to transition to a regime bound by the rule of law. His conceptual reflections are supported by his acute historical awareness of linguistic and terminological peculiarities in Russia that ‘reflect certain historical and cultural realities’ (Yakovlev 1996: 12) and contribute to a baffling resistance of Russia to the principles of legality and legitimacy of political institutions. Yakovlev is unyielding in his conviction that only if the state’s actions are based on legality and the government can command a sufficient amount of legitimacy can Russia’s transition to a truly democratic society be successful. In a stinging critique of Marxism and its notion of law, Yakovlev reflects on the confounding legacy of Soviet Communism. The consequences of the Marxist vision of law in society contributed to the fact that in Russia ‘law lost its autonomy and [was seen] only as an expression of interest’ (Yakovlev 1996: 23). Marxist doctrine mirrored in a certain way the dubious perspective of the Russian autocratic regime in severing the essential link between positive law and moral principles. While the only source of legality in Communist society was the interests of the proletariat, the Tsarist autocracy saw law originating solely in the will of the emperor (Yakovlev 1996: 23). Both profess a denial of the contractual basis of the state, and hence diminish the role of society in establishing the intimate link between prevalent moral maxims espoused in the wider Russian community and those regulating the state’s actions (Yakovlev 1996: 24).
