< return to index

Reflections on Russia: A Search for Understanding

Dr. Larry V. Ort

Dr. Zaichenko, my colleague and friend, has raised a number of good issues. He is far more knowledgeable of the Russian culture and history than I can ever hope to be. To be honest, I am somewhat hesitant to offer my opinions. Although philosophy is my field of study, I do not pretend to be an expert on Russian business ethics. As any good social scientist will recognize, the observations that I make, and the conclusions that I draw, are colored by my own experiences.

As I reflect upon business ethics in Russia, I am repeatedly confronted by a number of observations. First, I am struck by the extent of corruption that is readily apparent in the marketplace and the broader society. Do not misunderstand me. Any society, the United States included, experiences corrupt practices in the marketplace. But what strikes me is the difference in degree. While corruption is an occasional problem in the United States, by all admissions, it is a pervasive problem in the Russian marketplace. For example, President Putin recently said "only 10 percent of funds earmarked in the budget for housing maintenance reach their targets" (Moscow Times, "President Orders Revamp of Utility Payments," February 19, 2001, p. 5). The article further observes that this is "the first time that government leaders have addressed the massive corruption and incompetence in the sector" (Ibid.).

Second, I am struck by the ready acceptance of that corruption, and by the attitude that nothing is ever going to change. I routinely encounter cynicism, despair, and hopelessness. Again, this is very different from the attitudes that one would encounter in the United States.

For example, in the United States, the Pulitzer Prize is without a doubt the most coveted prize in journalism. Yet, the monetary reward of $5000 pales in comparison to the Nobel Prize. There are fourteen categories for which this prize is awarded. Meritorious public service, investigative reporting, national affairs, international affairs, distinguished commentary, and distinguished criticism are among these categories (www.pulitzer.org). Journalists within Russia who engage in similar endeavors are frequently silenced through murder. Reporters Sans Frontières, a Paris based media watchdog, reports that at least six journalists were killed in Russia in 2000 (Moscow Times, "Press Freedom Eyed," April 12, 2001, p. 4). The assailants are rarely captured or brought before the bar of justice.

Third, I am confronted by the lack of trust. I realize that lack of trust stems from a prolonged history of betrayal within Russia. Levi Grossman's book, Forever Flowing, characterizes the psychological profiles of various Judas types. The betrayals of these Judas types led to a stream of prisoners that was "forever flowing" into the gulags.

Allow me to tell you a story that dramatically illustrates this lack of trust. In 1992, some friends and I visited a Russian teacher and her seven-year-old son. I took her son a toy truck and presented it to him as a gift. She later told me that he said that he liked me, for I had "kind eyes." I cannot imagine ever hearing a seven-year-old American child making such a comment. Yet in the society that immediately preceded that era, it was essential that children be raised to recognize whom they could or could not trust.

I have also listened to a number of Russian businesspersons as they related how partners stole everything they could from their business. Admittedly, partners will occasionally do the same in America, but, once again, it is the frequency that appears so radically different.

Fourth, I am also struck by a corresponding lack of respect for persons. Admittedly, life can be harsh in any major city, but there is a callousness here that I find disturbing.

Lastly, I am confronted by the lack of acceptance of individual responsibility and the lack of self-criticism. Others are routinely criticized, but the admission of one's own complicity is rarely forthcoming. Over the past several years, I have lived in Russia for approximately three years and have engaged in many serious conversations. Yet, from all those conversations, I can only recall two instances where individuals admitted that they were a part of the overall problem, for they had refused to hold themselves or others accountable.

Lest I paint an entirely negative picture, I should state that I am encouraged by the transition to international accounting standards and a growing realization, if not yet a full implementation, that the rule of law is necessary for a fully functioning society. If I did not have high hopes for Russia and for the Russian people, I would not be here.

Nonetheless, I still find myself puzzled over the perceived lack of trust, lack of respect, and abdication of individual responsibility. These traits are essential for the proper functioning of the marketplace. If trust, respect, and responsibility were to become firmly established in the Russian marketplace, including the government, wouldn't one witness a dramatic decrease in the flight of capital and a corresponding increase in investments?

As I compare Russia and America, I am confronted by these questions: Why is trust so vulnerable in Russia? Why is there so little respect of persons? And why are people so reticent to accept individual responsibility for bringing about personal and social change?

Thus far, my investigation has led me to the tentative hypothesis that the contrasting levels of trust, respect, and responsibility witnessed in the United States and Russia stem from significant differences in national heritage and identity.

With a few exceptions, the earliest settlers of America were drawn by the promise of religious freedom. These settlers were seeking to escape religious persecution from both church and state. Ultimately, the American experience led to the formation of a new country with a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people." The words of the Declaration of Independence acknowledge the place and the rights of the individual:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights further define the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the individual citizen.

The commitments embraced in these founding documents ultimately led to wave upon wave of emigrants who sought to escape oppressive governments and regimes, religious persecution, and in some instances, starvation. Those who came to American had already bought in to the principles expressed in the founding documents. Hence, these principles were reinforced by each new wave of immigrants.

The history and identity of Russia are markedly different from that of the United States. The differences are numerous; they range across geography, ethnicity, social values, governance, economics, and culture, to name but a few. Social science informs us that all of these factors are part of a broader system wherein each factor influences, and in turn is influenced by, other factors.

Nonetheless, when attempting to understand or to account for the lack of trust, lack of respect, and abdication of individual responsibility, the role and place of the state appears to have far more significance than do the other factors.

Dr. Andrei A. Kokoshin, a historian and Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences traces the role and place of the state throughout Russian history from the Byzantine era. His analysis draws upon the works of Berdyaev, Gaidar, Solov'ev, and Livshits. Drawing from Berdyaev's "The Soul of Russia" in The Russian Idea, Kokoshin writes:

The strength of a people whose gaze was thought, not without reason, to be fixed on the inner spiritual life, had been surrendered to a colossal state that turned everything into its own instrument. Interest in the creation, maintenance, and preservation of a huge state occupies a unique and overpowering place in Russian history. (Kokoshin, "Reflections on Russia's past, Present, and Future," CSIA Occasional Paper, Strengthening Democratic Institutions, 1997)

Kokoshin further cites Berdyaev's belief that the state's exaggerated role sapped the strength of its own creative life, for creative efforts were turned toward the maintenance of the state and its powers. Consequently, the people were oppressed due to the tremendous demands placed upon them by the state. Ultimately, the state became an immense bureaucracy.

In the more recent history of the Soviet era, it is well acknowledged that the communist state perfected the machinery of oppression that was implemented during the czarist era. The secret police and bureaucratic measures were extended to unprecedented levels. Kokoshin argues that the role and place of the state continues to be the central question of reform in Russia.

Assuming that Kokoshin is right, how does all of this relate to the ethics of the businessperson? What does it have to do with the lack of trust, lack of respect, and abdication of responsibility?

I submit that a state that has routinely betrayed the rights and interests of its citizens should only expect its citizens, given the opportunity, to routinely betray their obligations to the state. Violation of trust leads to lack of trust. Is it any wonder that businesspersons engage in "na levo" activities, or that the evasion of taxes has become the norm?

The state's emphasis upon bureaucratic measures at the expense of the basic rights of individuals reflects the lack of respect for the individual. Such a system has no place, nor respect, for individual autonomy; ultimately, this lack of respect pervades society.

Similarly, a state that assumes all powers and privileges desires to foster an attitude of dependency, for the attitude of dependency only serves to reinforce the role and status of the state. In the face of overwhelming force and violence, it becomes easy for one to abdicate one's responsibility. It is the rare individual, the Sakharov or the Solzhenitsyn, who finds the inner resources to stand against such overwhelming odds.

Many people are convinced that change must occur, but how is change likely to occur? Some argue that change will only occur as a result of moral reform on the part of individuals; that when a critical mass is reached within the society, that reform will occur. I do not deny the plausibility of this approach, nor do I deny its attractiveness. But the change process may be more complicated than this view permits.

Individuals rarely strive for moral reform if there is no perceived incentive to reform. Individual change usually occurs only when one becomes convinced that change is essential. In religious terminology, conversion follows conviction.

Clearly, there is an attitude on the part of the Russian government that reforms must take place (conviction). The Ministry of Education is sponsoring educational reforms that are designed to promote critical thinking. Under the Soviet era, critical thinking was suppressed. As previously mentioned, there is increased commitment to the need for rule of law; and, international accounting standards are being set in place. These measures of conversion, sponsored by the government, go a long way toward creating a climate wherein individual moral reform is fostered and encouraged. Likewise, sufficient individual moral reform ultimately leads to further governmental reforms. The social system acts upon the individual and, in turn, is acted upon by the individual.

Change agents need not select an either/or position. The true agent of change recognizes the complexity of the task and seeks to promote change on both individual and social levels. Hopefully, we will see more individuals seeking to promote change in response to these governmental initiatives.