Correct. But those years or rampant, lawless corruption have, for Russians, ruined the idea of "Western democracy", just like the years of Soviet rule have ruined the idea of "domestic democracy." Nowadays people just seek a strong leader who isn't too crazy.
If you phrase it like that, do you still wonder why everybody is so concerned about Russia? I can't think of any example of a "strong leader" that hasn't lead to war, except if said leader was only powerful inside his own country and otherwise isolated and contained. Russia isn't what it used to be, but it's still one of the most powerful countries in the world. If Russians want a strong leader, the logical conclusion for the rest of the world must be that Russia should be weakened as much as possible, before things get too bad.
I often think too that politicians have a tendency to be incompetent idiots, but I'd much prefer to spread the power between as many of them as possible instead of betting on a single guy to not fuck everything up. Because let's face it, power corrupts, and "strong leaders" usually don't remain "not too crazy" for long.
Also, and I don't really want to pull another Godwin here, but if you say it like that, people being distrustful of democracy after bad experiences and hoping a strong leader might fix everything, boy, does that remind me of something.