INTRODUCTION

An outstanding role of Russia in European and world history as well as a rather peculiar outward show of its supreme power holders have impressed many outside observers since the early eighteenth century. They tend to believe that Russia is prone to producing unique forms of political organization. Many Russians feel flattered and readily accept their exceptionalism.

Does this mentally exaggerated uniqueness of Russia have any actual affirmation? Any country in fact has a peculiar constitution of its body politic and national psyche as well as a history of its own. Many are so irregular from a common perspective that they may rightfully claim uniqueness. Russia may be a proper example of being very uncommon. But even actual inimitability cannot deprive a country of essential properties of its kind. Thus, any polity would have a power structure, albeit a very peculiar one. Any state would have individual members, be they citizens or subjects, or qualify to any other uncommon criteria of membership.

With all it exceptional appearance, Russia is a constituent of the global community of states, in many ways a fairly sound and reliable one. At present, members of this community resort to polar models of relations between people and state authorities. One implies one-way subordination of people to authority, another interaction between them including accountability of authorities. Of course, in any polity, one can find institutions and practices of subordination as well as institutions and practices of interaction and accountability. The question is, Which are dominant and shape political order? The ones where subordination still prevails are less modern and more autocratic. The ones where interaction and accountability already have an advantage are more modern and democratic. In many cases, we can see uneasy processes of subordination being gradually reduced and supplanted by accountability coming to the fore.