Earlier this week, Russia held its presidential elections. As had been suspected for a long time, the winner of the election was Dmitry Medvedev, a 42-year-old lawyer who has worked with the Kremlin since 1990. On paper, that sounds like a decent choice for the nuclear powerhouse of Russia, who has historically struggled with the implications of a democratic system. Although these elections appeared to be held in a democratic manner, opposition forces are claiming something quite different occurred, along the lines of a so-called “KGB power handover.”

Medvedev may have spent almost two decades working with the Kremlin, but the majority of those years were focused on soon-to-be former President Vladimir Putin. Media critics in Russia and around the world have claimed Medvedev to be a direct shoe-in of Putin’s, a sort-of replacing the old with … well, with old who has a younger face. Medvedev has specifically said that he plans to use Putin as his mentor, already having asked him to be his prime minister.

I’m not going to lie, but if I recall correctly from my eighth grade political science class, that doesn’t exactly sound like a direct democracy to me. Medvedev refused to take part in any media-covered debates, interviews and press conferences, which sounds a little shady. Widespread fear of election corruption has spread across Russia, with other opposition forces stating that many of Russia’s voting laws have been broken, slanting public favor toward Medvedev. This may just be my opinion, but it doesn’t sound like many of the Russian people are really given an opportunity to see who this candidate really is in order to make an independent choice of their own. Something else seems to be at work here.

Thinking about Russia’s recent elections, I initially responded with three cheers for democracy in my head, thinking that there are few better ways to hold an election than to let citizens learn about those who wish to represent them, ultimately making their own choice and casting their vote free of persuasion, corruption and force. At least that’s what happens here in the good old US of A right? Yeah, well … sort of. It’s more like we would like to believe that elections run like that. Instead, we watch our presidential hopefuls slander each other, spread false rumors and bribe others for support. It’s apparently more important for us to know which presidential candidate has had an affair with what pretty young lobbyist and what candidate has spent more money on their campaign than the next. Are we focusing on the real issues here? It seems to me that opposition campaigns will go to almost any length to bash the other campaign, including mass e-mails about false claims on personal religious beliefs and voting history of opposing party members. Are those accusations really allowing you to make an honest choice on a candidate, based on his stance on national and global issues and not false rumors and accusations? I think not.

The truth is, I don’t really know which scenario is better or worse. For some reason, democracy seems to be a difficult concept to grasp, no matter what part of the world you’re in. The lesson learned here, though, should remind you that voting in its core sense and meaning is a chance to make your voice and opinion heard. Make your own choices independent from the thousands of phone calls, e-mails and accusations you are bombarded with daily.