Ideologically divided it will stay. I think it's clear that Yeltsin did not act as a democratic leader, and in 1993, at least, his dominion was not a democracy. Also, we see that it's not a good idea for the foremost party of the democratic movement to be composed of people who formerly held power in the communist party. One reason Solidarity worked in Poland is that it was decidedly outside of the system. It got legitimacy and support, and at the same time avoided censure, all because it advertised that it was in no way a part of the existing political establishment.
Democracy exists in a place where there is real plurality, truly different political movements.
That's like me putting on a kimono and saying I'm Japanese. It's like Hilter putting on a Ki'ppa, growing payeos, saying a kaddish over some kish-ki, and calling himself a Jew. Having open elections within a government does not make it democratic if electors are threatened with financial sanctions were they not to vote for the established leader. An example close to my heart is Mexico, which I would not call a democratic state until the last election, in which single-party rule was eliminated. I believe we should discuss this more in class, but you should all get my point.