In the book “How Russia Really Works” Alena Ledeneva describes a range of informal practices which were used by Russian government in order to establish different democratic and market institutions. In times of Soviet era, all of the Russians were involved in the so-called ‘blat’ which consisted in obtaining goods and services through separate personal networks; this meant that ordinary people could not obtain the same goods and services unless they were well-connected. The collapse of Soviet Union entailed a set of ‘unwritten rules’ which allowed keeping the society afloat after rather a rapid transition to market democracy. Among other informal practices there were black and grey PR, krugovaya poruka, and kompromat, which involved serious implications for the development of the country. Such an informal practice as kompromat gained power only due to the corruption which was so widespread in Russia back then; in the same time India, where the corruption in 1990s could also be observed, chose to consolidate moral integrity to save the country from corruption.
Kompromat can be characterized by the use of compromising materials by two opponent people. Kompromat was widely used in media, business, and politics and had dual benefit. It was beneficial for the person who was divulging the information and for the government or media which could use this information to ruin the life of a person who was compromised. Compromising materials were audio and video tapes, as well as tapped phone conversations obtaining which was considered legal, since no privacy was recognized when the information concerned governmental affairs.
What’s more, kompromat became so widespread in 1990s’ Russia because of corruption. Getting compromising materials was, without any doubt, expensive. Most of politicians paid great sums of money to get the information which could soil the reputation of their opponents. The then government was not even trying to fight with corruption. On the contrary, people who were supplying the government with compromising materials were encouraged. Thus, there was no sense for the government to eradicate the corruption from society. Unlike India, Russia appeased with the fact that corruption bred kompromat and did not take measures to fight with it.
Finally, corruption in Indian government in 1990s was a common case. Together with the ordinary government there existed the parallel one which was run by a network of mafias: “There has been a rapid spread and growth of criminal gangs … and economic lobbies in the country, which have … developed an intensive network of contacts with bureaucrats, government functionaries, politicians … and strategically located individuals in non-state sector.” (Upadhyay) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which, while it was in opposition, was known by its moral integrity, but “when it aligned with the political leaders with shady background for the sake of power, the malady of corruption infected this party too.” (Upadhyay) Keeping the moral integrity was vital for not letting the corruption into the government. Therefore, the leadership of the party went for ideological compromise to capture the power in the country.
In sum, a number of informal practices could be observed in Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union. Among the most widespread were blat, krugovaya poruka, black and grey PR, and kompromat; the latter existed because of the corruption in country which was not even considered a problem for society. India, in its turn, tried to fight with corruption in government by means of fortifying moral integrity, which proved to be rather helpful with time.
Works Cited
Upadhyay, R. “Political Corruption in India: An Analysis.” Sangeeta Debashish. 2001. South Asian Analysis Group. 2009. Web.