AHC: Decentralised, democratic Russia

Your challenge is to create a governing system of Russia that is democratic and decentralised, so most power lies at the equivalent to the US state level. The country should identify as part of the democratic West, and be an influential player in a democratic alliance. The democracy should be lasting to the modern day, and with no real prospect of reverting to autocracy.

POD is any time after 1850, but I'm asking here as I suspect post-1900 PODs are more likely.
 
At a glance I see at least two problems with that:
  • The significant variation in population density between European Russia and Siberia
  • The centrifugal effect that regional autonomy could have when coupled with ethnic and linguistic differences
As far as I understand, Siberia is resource-rich and people-poor, while Russia proper is the opposite. How can delegation of power to the former not hinder the formation of sound national policies?
 
Your challenge is to create a governing system of Russia that is democratic and decentralised, so most power lies at the equivalent to the US state level. The country should identify as part of the democratic West, and be an influential player in a democratic alliance. The democracy should be lasting to the modern day, and with no real prospect of reverting to autocracy.

POD is any time after 1850, but I'm asking here as I suspect post-1900 PODs are more likely.

It would be a recipe for national suicide. Bad as Stalin's reputation has been, he was exactly the kind of leader Russia needed at the time. Even with his crash industrialization, and maximum emphasis on armament, WWII was a very close run thing. Anyone, or any system of government less ruthless and determined would've meant annihilation. To survive the USSR had to be a disciplined monolith.
 
It would be a recipe for national suicide. Bad as Stalin's reputation has been, he was exactly the kind of leader Russia needed at the time. Even with his crash industrialization, and maximum emphasis on armament, WWII was a very close run thing. Anyone, or any system of government less ruthless and determined would've meant annihilation. To survive the USSR had to be a disciplined monolith.


I think you have drank the Stalinist cool aid a little bit by saying he did anything other than cripple the ussrs officer corp and therefore it’s ability to defend itself in the years leading up to the war.
 
I think you have drank the Stalinist cool aid a little bit by saying he did anything other than cripple the ussrs officer corp and therefore it’s ability to defend itself in the years leading up to the war.


He crash industrialized the country and built up its armed forces. Despite the purges Soviet leadership was still adequate--look at Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc.
 
He crash industrialized the country and built up its armed forces. Despite the purges Soviet leadership was still adequate--look at Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc.
Stalin’s crash industrialization is actually a myth. He only continued an economic trend that originated under the Tsar.

If the Tsar had stayed in power Russia would have industrialized significantly faster, all without the tens of millions of deaths caused by Stalin.
C1rbraJ.png
 

samcster94

Banned
Stalin’s crash industrialization is actually a myth. He only continued an economic trend that originated under the Tsar.

If the Tsar had stayed in power Russia would have industrialized significantly faster, all without the tens of millions of deaths caused by Stalin.
C1rbraJ.png
Easily. China is even worse, as Mao's economic legacy is rather poor(and a different leader would have done better).
 
On a timescale like this the creation of ideologies favorable to decentralization (or many many other things) is really no problem. Employing it within the context of the Russian Empire seems like a bad idea, so likely we're talking about either a revolution or a military conquest (or both).

Perhaps the easiest (though not the best for Russia) is a different WWI where Germany's victory is more complete and a more thorough domination of Russia results in this decentralization. That's a lot of territory to dictate terms to, but then the POD doesn't specify the borders of "Russia," so perhaps we're talking only about European Russia.

ITTL let's say Germany's more illiberal tendencies die in the crucible of victory and they promote democracy in forms of ever increasing equity to all of their allies. Eventually, it gets to the point where Germany is more like first among equals than dominating power, and all of the Russias are an important bloc of voices in the alliance.

Alternately, you could have Russia go revolutionary (either due to a war or just mounting social unrest), happen upon decentralization on their own as a system worth trying, and develop ties with a democratizing West over a period of years. You could have the alliance form in the aftermath of a collapsing Germany, giving up its satellites, or you could have a less oppressive system in place that simply welcomes Russia once everyone's cleared their heads of the idiocy of the imperial build-up of the 19th century.
 
Option 1: Russia succesfully tranform itself as constitutional monarchy. It hardly become federal state but it can get some more autonomous ethnic-based regions with Finland and Poland.
Option 2: Provisional Government makes separate peace with Germany and avoids October Revolution. Then Russia with some luck transfer itself towards democracy and some decentralisation.

But in both case I doubt that Russia could become USA type federal state. It has been always traditionally very centralised country.
 
Stalin’s crash industrialization is actually a myth. He only continued an economic trend that originated under the Tsar.

If the Tsar had stayed in power Russia would have industrialized significantly faster, all without the tens of millions of deaths caused by Stalin.
C1rbraJ.png
While I do agree that Stalinist rule was overwhelmingly a bad thing for the SU, it should be noted that the goal of the Five Year Plans was never to increase the GDP of Russia or its people's well being. It was to increase the size of the Soviet military and to rapidly build up a military-industrial complex, a goal which was successfully achieved. So using GDP as a measure of Five Year Plan success is inaccurate.
 
Top