|← European Nations' Governance of Colonies||The United States' Senate →|
The history and current state of ethnic diversity and tension in Russia developed due to influence by various factors. First, the vastness of the empire included territories that comprised of different ethnic groups. The manner in which these groups interacted varied with changing political regimes. These regimes employed diverse systems of governance to maintain control on the populace. They played a role in suppressing nationhood while promoting various aspects of ethnicity (Aktu%u0308rk, 2012). The emergence of capitalism is another crucial factor relating to changing depictions on ethnicity. However, its influence on ethnicity largely arose from the need for interactions by parties from different ethnicity. Capitalism created a framework that promoted wider scope of on views concerning the promotion of national and individual goals. It led to the removal of ethnicity in passports and the changing of various ethnic-based laws. However, just like in any other societal setting, the aspect of ethnicity did not require definition by external parties in order to exhibit itself.
An analysis of the trial and imprisonment of the Russian band “Pussy Riot” illustrates a region facing a considerably restrictive system of governance especially concerning the freedom of expression. The adoption of measures to curtail groups interested in publicly presenting their views concerning the society and form of governance depicts a non-democratic system of power (Bodin, 2012). Their action did not warrant the stringent measures applied in their case considering that they did not cause any significant damages. Curtailing the freedom of expression illustrates authoritarian governance that does not accommodate views of its subjects, but rather imposes rules and regulations that attract severe outcomes for those who challenge them. Pussy Riot’s actions did not warrant the severity that they attracted for their actions. The justice system that is suppose to ensure due process of the law failed terribly in its roles and appears to have acted under the influence of the state (Williams & Chuprov, 2003).