The historical practice of power in Russia is important to understand modern-era economic reform and to illuminate how, over time, Russian leaders have understood the limits of reform. The country’s rulers have made similar decisions over time because they have been in similar positions with similar limitations, regardless of whether they have served as tsars, general secretaries, or presidents. It is as true today as it was in the time of Peter the Great that Russia is territorially vast with few natural barriers to external threats, possesses an unevenly distributed population that makes sustained development difficult, possesses numerous valuable export commodities, and suffers from capital deficiency that makes leaders reliant on patrimonial relations with elites and puts the country’s external economic relations in a peripheral position to more advanced states.

This chapter outlines why and how the practice of power in Russia is different from that in other states and the historical processes by which the “rules of the game” came to exist. Many states are weakly democratic or authoritarian, or have had authoritarian periods in their history, but what makes Russia different is how the country’s leadership seems to toggle consciously between “opening up” and “closing down”. The switching is usually understood in reference to the “West”, and this chapter begins by explaining the two major images of power in Western historiography about Russian leaders: the “Iron Tsar” who rules vertically by forcing his will upon subordinates, and the “Balancer” who rules horizontally by being first among equals with other powerful actors and balancing different elite factions. A tremendous amount of scholarship focuses on which type any one ruler may be – the dictator who coerces his subjects or a master of palace intrigue – but I break from the conventional wisdom by showing that leadership in Russia is not one or the other style but, instead, different phases of governance. Individuals in Russia might take power by demonstrating coercive capabilities, but they can sustain power only by balancing different factions.