Like almost every discussion about Russia in the last ten years, the post-mortem on Russia's recent parliamentary election has polarized simplistically between "optimists" and "pessimists." Optimists argue that people voted, parties participated, the process was free and fair, and the outcome was a victory for "reform." Pessimists believe people did not care, parties did not matter, the process was rigged, and the outcome was a setback for "reform."

In the wake of the August 1998 financial meltdown, many predicted that political breakdown would soon follow. Throughout the summer and fall, Russian analysts of all political orientations began to speak openly and often about the specter of Russian fascism should the economic crisis continue. Others, including even Yeltsin, have warned about coup plots aimed at toppling Russia's fragile democracy. The threat of Russian federal dissolution also loomed as a possible nightmare scenario as individual regional leaders began to deal with the economic crisis with little regard for national laws or national interests. In this new political context, challenges to Russian electoral democracy have proliferated. Before August 1998, it was taboo to speak of, let alone advocate, alternatives to elections as the method for selecting political leaders. After August 1998, discussions of alternatives have renewed again.

With the United States fixated on crime and corruption in Russia, Russians obsess about two other dramas: upcoming parliamentary elections and the war in the Caucasus region. The first drama might well have a happy ending, rare for Russian dramas these days. The second is almost certainly a tragedy in the making. Worse, the war in the Caucasus may eventually subsume elections altogether, resulting in their cancellation, civil resistance and even civil war. Before such a scenario gains more momentum, U.S. officials should look beyond Russian corruption and do what they can to lower the probability of democratic collapse in Russia.

Like almost every discussion about Russia in the last ten years (and the Soviet Union during the preceding seven decades), the debate about Russias upcoming parliamentary election is polarized simplistically between "optimists" and "pessimists." Optimists believe that the election is a "good thing." People are voting, parties are participating, and everyone is happy. Pessimists believe that the election is a "bad thing." People do not care, parties dont matter, and everyone is sad.

Not since the August 1991 coup attempt has the future of Russian democracy been more uncertain than it is today. Ironically, at a time when Russian society has embraced individual liberties, a free press and competitive elections, the new leader of the Russian state, Acting President Vladimir Putin, has demonstrated real ambivalence toward democracy.

One of the decade's biggest events in Europe is happening at the end of October - the Ukrainian presidential election. The process by which the next leader of Ukraine is decided will determine that country's future orientation for years to come.

If the current government in Ukraine allows for relatively free and fair elections as the process for selecting the president, then Ukraine will be able to maintain the prospect of consolidating democracy and integrating fully into European institutions. If, however, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma does not allow the people to decide who will replace him, and instead wields the power of the state to undermine the democratic process, then Ukraine will have little chance to consolidate democracy, and no chance of further integrating into Europe. Instead of becoming the next Poland, that is a rising power in the heart of Europe, Ukraine will become yet another post-Soviet autocracy, following Russian dictates with no chance at all of joining the Western community of democratic states.