For the last twenty-five years urban bias has been one of the most prevalent theoretical frameworks for analyzing urban-rural relations in developing nations. Urban bias is commonly thought to be of greater intensity and duration in nondemocratic nations, in particular one party systems.' As post-Soviet states democratize and open their political systems to competition, urban bias would be expected to be more difficult to maintain. In particular, Robert Bates hypothesized that in nations with competitive party systems, political competition for votes leads to a shift in policy in favor of rural interests.2 According to this argument, rural groups in competitive political systems are able to organize for the purpose of seeking and mobilizing electoral support, thus influencing policy in ways that are advantageous to rural interests. Moreover, rural interests and the rural population at large present opportunities for urban interests to build support through alliances. In seeking out rural alliances, urban groups would court rural interests and make policy concessions that benefit the rural sector in exchange for electoral and political support. Why has urban bias remained, and even intensified, during increased political competition and democratization in post-Soviet Russia? Why has democratization been accompanied by a significant decline in the ability of rural interests to influence policy in ways that are beneficial to them? Why has democratization in Russia, apparently paradoxically, been accompanied by economic policies and policy outcomes that are characteristic of urban bias in noncompetitive one party states? This article, first, analyzes aspects of the urban bias problem that have not been previously considered and, furthermore, have not been applied to post-Soviet states. The importance of political cohesion and differences over ideology have not received the emphasis they deserve, thus creating a theoretical vacuum for understanding rural politics in postcommunist nations. In particular, four factors have been ignored: ideological differences between the state and rural interests, the ideological compatibility of rural interests, the internal coherence of rural interests, and the nature of political alliances formed by rural groups. This article, second, analyzes peasant-state relations in postcommunist Russia, bearing in mind what the analysis suggests about Russian democratization. Rural political weakness due to ideological differences and lack of cohesion