A transition can only on be called successful when no one can reverse the democratic imposed changes (Przeworski, 1991: 14).
Within the literature there are broadly two views on how democracy can be made possible. The first view links a stable democracy to certain economic and social variables like high per capita income, widespread literacy and urbanisation (Lipset, 1959). However, according to Przeworski, this view focusses too much on how an already existing democracy can blossom (Przeworksi, 1991). Moreover, there is increasing evidence that in countries where there is high economic growth, like in Russia and China, authoritarian regimes are still in place. Therefore, solely focussing on economic and social variables is not an accurate predictor of a possible democratic transition. The second view emphasises the cultural component of democracy. Scholars, like Huntington, argue that democracy is only possible when citizens and the political elite embrace certain democratic values and beliefs (Huntington, 1997; Dahl, 1998). Huntington even argues that some cultures are simply not viable for democracy. However, the cultural component provides no strong evidence for the absence of a democratic transition in Russia. Research from the 1990s prove that the Soviet/Russian culture is not an obstacle for a transition to democracy (Gibson, Dutch and Tedin, 1992). .
This means there has to be other factors that can explain why Russia is not changing into a proper democracy. The theory of McFaul could be a possible explanation. McFaul (2005) did research to the democratic transitions in Georgia, Ukraine and former Yugoslavia after the year 2000. He distinguishes five factors that were in all three countries of vital importance to make a transition possible: 1) a semi-autocratic regime, 2) an unpopular leader 3) a united opposition 4) that can mobilize supporters and 5) space for free press (McFaul, 2005).