That's a simplistic argument to make, that Russians 'tried' democracy and it failed. The fact is that Russian's never got to experience democracy at all, with the coming of Yeltsin into power the centralized market system was thrown out overnight for a capitalist economy, workers were issued shares for the companies they worked in, the Russian currency collapsed, pensions were stopped, all due to western economists (who arrived in droves) believing that the spirit of entrepreneurship would suddenly infect the souls of people who lived under communist rule for over 60 years.

But what happened was that some individuals within that system started buying out the shares from the workers who needed to sustain themselves at that point, seizing massive control of various industries, thus creating the oligarchs. The same people who now own various football clubs in the UK.

The people as a whole felt robbed, they blamed democracy for that, failing to see how the economic reforms worked against them, instead of blaming the transition many more people assumed it was democracy that was at fault. What should have been a long term phased switch into a market economy like the one seen with China was rushed within the space of a few years, incomes and welfare of course fell. Look at how gradually China introduced free market zones, by cordoning them off to small regions, then allowed foreign direct investment there. The whole motto of their capital development was "import 1st product, assemble 2nd product, manufacture 3rd product".

The current Putin government is full of KGB cronies who have muscled their way into acquisition of the most important sectors of the economy, most significant of them being the oil sector, which is wholly responsible for the economic boom in Russia. The war in Iraq and possible war with Iran has seen the Oil price soar year on year since 2000 and Putin's coming into power and the economic boom in Russia, that's not coincidental. This is why Putin visited Iran, instability in the Middle East sustains the high oil price and Russia's development.

Putin did give something to the Russians, and that is pride in their nation, a seeming return to the heyday of the Soviet Union with it's planting of flags in the Arctic, stance against the American government and nuclear armed patrols that hark back to the Cold War era. But it also came with government control of oil resources, elimination of civil rights, elimination of freedom of press, state control of media, needless military expansionism, Byzantine rule of government, political oppression through assassination of those who oppose the government.

Just this past month he imposed a collective freeze on food prices until after the elections sometime in January, this was done so as to keep the appearance to Russia's poor that the economy was doing well when in reality food prices across the world are rising, once elections are over they can remove the freeze.

A good article on "Why Putin Wins" is Sergei Kovalev's article , who gives a realistic breakdown of Russia as it is now and what is its future. As Scott Horton says in "What Putin Wants":

The challenge will be for America more than for Russia. In America, there is still a hope that the democratic process can work to effect a rollback of creeping authoritarianism and a restoration of the beacon of hope that the land once held up to the world. In Russia, all sight of that beacon is lost.

Your argument that non-democratic states like Kingdom of Saudi Arabia offer a higher standard of living is ridiculous, most of the population lives in poverty as the wealth is concentrated in the Royal family and even then only through the continual oil production, almost everything it produces is sustain through government subsidization, much more of its products are simply imported. Jordan differs because they possesses a technocrat King who believes in development, that doesn't mean tomorrow a tyrant will take power.

And am sorry but slave like hours on minimal wage for 90% of the population making Nike shoes does not translate into a higher standard living for the Chinese as a whole, not to mention that development is confined to the coastal areas, while inland China lives in poverty due to lack of investment and encroaching desert taking away valuable agricultural land. China possess an incredible amount of income disparity, firms are still mainly controlled by the Chinese government. It is true that there is slowly an emergence of a middle class, that is being educated abroad and not going back to mainland China, because opportunities in the west are much better.

The argument that ANY government policy has a potential to achieve strong economy is simplistic, the market system works because various agents start to develop products and services to supply a demand of other agents. That requires freedom of enterprise, the ability to freely form business solutions. That means reform laws that actively invite business activities to take place. Communism or centralized market economy does not lead to a strong economy because the demand and supply signals do not exist, the government decides what is important to produce and does it. It leads to a mis balance and a concentration of power in the hands of the few, this is why the USSR failed, and why China started to put in place free market reforms in the 80s. States in the Middle East still sustain their perverse development through oil money, without which all of them would quite realistically fail, as they are overly reliant on foreign labor and are not actively developing their skilled labor force, not to mention the sheer amount of corruption that occurs between those in high office and citizens.

Your mention of a few democratic states that are in poor shapes is simplistic again, they are not failures of democracy but rather a lack of proper reforms and rule. Brazil is doing rather well now actually even though government corruption is still rife as is political instability. Nepal is constitutional monarchy, where the King has assumed emergency powers and holds all executive power so I have no idea why you lumped it in there. Albania on the other hand has had successive government instability with the neighboring war, socialist, democratic governments in succession, the economy however is steadily developing even though stability has been hard to attain since 1990.

The idea behind democracy is that citizens can have a say in where their nation is heading, being elected to government doesn't make saints out of people where they suddenly selflessly try to achieve economy development for the people as a whole. The African nations where strong armed authoritative ruler one after the other prove this, as does Hugo Chavez who after winning the trust of the poor is now concentrating all executive power under his own control, as does Iran where Mahmoud's promises to the poor for oil revenue sharing amounted to nothing but continuous tensions and sanctions from the west.

I think you need to further broaden your understanding of the complexities of government rule and policy with regards to economic development as they are rather basic right now.

Nice find mink, and I still say you crazies are having this crazy dream about democratic Utopian world. Part of the reason why Putin and his ways are so popular is because they 'tried' democracy back when Yeltsin was in power.

Things went to shits during that time, yet Putin was one of the very fews that actually disagreed with Yeltsin's ways, saying decentralized states would ruin the nation, and Russia needs a more authoritative government to stabilize itself from post-disintegration of USSR.

10 years later things turned exactly the way Putin had predicted, and gave him lot of credibility. That's why Putin got into power in the first place.

All in all, they've tried their best to have democracy and things turned out to be awful. Putin comes in with his ways and things are turning around, and nation is getting rich.

So tell me, why the heck would Russians risk everything they've got right now, and try this democracy deal again?

p.s. and why are you guys keep linking democracy = better standard of living / humane treatment?

Standards of living comes from better economy, not just by switching to democracy. And don't give me that 'democracy = better economy' BS. That's capitalism, not democracy (IE People's Republic of China). Democracy is a way of government policy, not ethics. There were / still are plenty of non-democratic nations with very high standard of living (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China and etc). And democratic nations that are in poor shapes despite their western government policies, such as Brazil, Nepal and Albania

Any kind of government policy has a potential of achieving strong economy and higher standards of living. Quit doing that cold-war style 'OUR GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT'.

heh, Albania's love for America is a wonderful.
Watching Bush get his watch stolen on Camera is priceless.

I am a Catholic priest and would like to chime in on this one.
1. I accept the scientific method of relying on material evidence and on the idea that a series of tests often lead to a valid conclusion. I also accept that (this positive) science and theology are two different fields and should not be confused. Yet when it comes to ask questions about the meaning of life and our purpose of being, those who are involved in science make a significant step further and leave their own methodology, since those areas do not have a recourse to material evidence. Therefore the initial choice of trusting science only or atheism is casting one's votes for another kind of belief. Of course that does not necessarily mean an organised religion, but it is possible to develop into one, i.e. the practices of cold war Socialist countries or the then officially atheist Albania that often were highly liturgical. If one believes in scientific methodology as meaningful for one's existence, that's o.k. But it is a belief, and that's where it will have to face other belief systems.
2. Regarding evolution, it's too bad that Dawkin switched over to our evangelical brethren and, after treating the issue of Catholic Lourdes, did not go on analysing the Catholic position on evolution. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Humani Generis 36).
3. This Pope was indeed mentioned by Dawking regarding the latest dogma of Assumption. The Pope did not sit alone and think of himself that this should become a dogma. That's an accusation on Dawking's part that I find very offensive. What the Pope did was a serious study of the long history of Christians believing in Assumption and found it reasonable to promulgate it. In fact I have found articles of Orthodox Christians in which they criticised the promulgation as unnecessary, as it had alway been present in their theology, liturgy and iconography. It was exactly this long presence of the idea of Assumption that made the Pope reflect. He did not make it up.
4. I do recognise that religious people, Christians and Catholics too, have had a significant role in instigating wars and hatred. And I am sorry for that, since I am part of their circle, the church. And I know that being sorry does not heal the wounds religious individuals and groups inside the church or other churched have inflicted. But I remain with this church believing in and being witness of the desire in many to reflect and revise their attitude, even in the presence of others who stick to their unhealthy approach. The church is a very complex group of much wisdom and stupidity intermingling. I choose to work with the wisdom part.
5. From the bottom of my heart I love atheists. I love how they promote frankness. Their denial of God's existence makes me feel humble about our truths. They shake us, religious people, up from our intellectual and indeed spiritual-theological slumbers, and I do not even mind if they promote a little agenda of presenting facts or views that would underlie their belief and miss out on others that would not, - as shown above.
6. I have in mind many other priest colleagues who would by and large share these views. Cheers, and keep up the good work!