Recent Election Results in Russia -- thoughts?
Comments from those more local -- our East of the Elbe crowd -- especially appreciated.
Printable View
Recent Election Results in Russia -- thoughts?
Comments from those more local -- our East of the Elbe crowd -- especially appreciated.
What is this democracy you speak of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Angry Putin:24%Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Corrupt Putin:52%
Assassin Putin:5%
Quarrelsome Putin:19%
Russian democracy is clearly dead
Not dead, its still quite reactive... radioactive that is. :thumbsdown:
:bigcry:
Russian democracy has been dead for a few years now. Putin, while being hugely popular with his people (even now) is an autocrat and a tyrant even though he is very smart about asserting his autocratic rule. Sadly, he's the best that Russia currently has to offer: better have it under tyranny than under anarchy.
I'd be curious to understand a somewhat different thing, too (apologies to Seamus for being somewhat offtopic, but I think the two issues are related). Why is it that there are so many Russians who agree that Putin is a strongman, but at the same time wholeheartedly support him ? In other words, why do people feel that Russia _needs_ an iron-fisted leader?
Is it some nostalgia about regaining the superpower status that the USSR had ? (I find this difficult to believe, I can't imagine regular folk getting a kick out of being "#1"... it will hardly make a practical difference to them anyway)
Is it fear of anarchy ? (If so, is this really justified ? Why would Russia be more prone to anarchy than any other country ?)
Is it fear of other, existing or upcoming, powers, such as the US, China, India ?
I'd like to understand how people think.
Once again, Seamus, hope you don't mind too much for derailing the topic, but, as I said, it's not completely unrelated.
Yes. Russia throughout its history has been either under tyranny or under anarchy. It has never been truly free, although the USSR in its last couple of years and RUssia in the 90s had some semblance of freedom and democracy mixed together with plenty of anarchy and tremendous economic hardships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Not those as much as the West. Once again, Russia throughout its long history has always perceived the West as its enemy. It is somewhat justified, as most threats to Russia over the past 1000 years came from the west (except the mongols of course). So, they see the Democracy (as *we* understand it) as a western trojan horse, as a plot to undermine Russia from within. Thus, they do not trust democracy and prefer the much more familiar tyranny.Quote:
Is it fear of other, existing or upcoming, powers, such as the US, China, India ?
Finally, Russian economy is booming. People start caring less about freedom when they are too busy stuffing their pockets with the cash windfall from the oil trade.
That is my take on it.
Thank you for your answer, rvg, I'll chew on that for a while.
It worked in ancient Rome where the tyrants ruled as long as bread and circuses were supplied. Heck you could argue France fell because it ran out ofQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
cakeser bread.
Most of the Western forms of democracy don't get as thoroughly examined as they should because we are now distracted with fast food and TV.
sure it is: media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The media is not a neutral source of information. It is a commercial enterprise that makes money through advertising and hence needs you to watch. That requirement means that they have to give you what you desire not what you need to make an informed decision in a democracy.
Add to that the media may have its own agenda and/or the owners have desires that will mean that they want to have their companies promote be it ownership laws or religious affiliation (two aspects in Aus... cross-media ownership and scientology).
I think it's a Russian/Greek Orthodox Church attempt to reclaim the Roman conquests, since Moscow is the 3rd Rome, after Constantinople.
Meh. There you see *people* doing it? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
5% is not *people*
So I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
How's the economy over there, by the way?
Very bad. Moscow is ok though, but the rest sucks , except some truly rich persons with castles, billions (through stealing of course)...
Assuming you mean people's income..
I see. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
I was rather skeptical of the claim that "oil money" improved the average Russian's economic standing since I don't think Russia has, say, Norway's parity of income and distribution system as such.
I feel sorry for you man. This really sucks. I'd hate to be under Putin's Soviet myself. :embarassed:
Actually, it's the other way around. While still bad, the number of people living in poverty* has been cut in half during Putin's rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
And that gives support.
*that is, under the poverty line, it doesn't mean that they're not poor...
To be honest, in my opinion the painful truth is that Russia really is much better off under Putin than it has been ever since 1989. Putin is an autocrat, but the rule of law actually drastically increased under him. Putin didn't abolish the freedom of the press, human rights, rule of law, a functioning economic system - he rather re-established a minumum of those. Russians are much more secure in their rights and livelihood now than ever during the plunder of the early nineties, the financial crisis of the late nineties, the Yeltsin years.
I can be all sanctimonious about murdered journalists, intimidation, polonium, dictatorial tendencies, aggressive foreign policy, but Putin was a great step up from what was before.
Putin isn't the first autocrat to re-establish order in a country. He is also not the first to not see that the next step should be to step down. History would've judged him kindly if he did. Alas, power corrupts, absolute power etc.
You people are sad. The Cold War is over and Russia is our friend. This thread is nothing but an attempt by the US military industrial complex to...Oh I can't remember. Anyone have any good conspiracy theories along this line?
Nah, we're too occupied thinking about Putin's dark side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Oh, 'cept that Seamus is bought and paid for by CIA, of course. But he blew his cover a long, long time ago.
I KNEW it!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Can I have a job?
That said, screw Putin. There are very few dictators in history who didn't do anything good at all. Stalin is viewed mainly positive by Russians because he turned an agrarian society into an industrial and military superpower, but most people don't hesitate to call him a bad boy either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Western politicians that treat Putin with kid gloves, or even praise the guy into heaven like Schroder or some of the current SPD ministers piss me off immensely.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I categorically deny this. I am not an employee of any intelligence service. Move along here... nothing to see.
:devilish:
All hailPericlesPutin. :beam:
Is that because poverty was huge before Putin because the government decided that a good way to stop inflation was to not pay people so they had no money to spend , it isn't much of an achievement to half that is it ...big idea for securing the future .....actually pay people wages for their work and they won't be in the poverty figures because they get paid .Quote:
Actually, it's the other way around. While still bad, the number of people living in poverty* has been cut in half during Putin's rule.
Yeltsin was dangerous , Putin is dangerous , sneaky and clever , not a nice combination .Quote:
Recent Election Results in Russia -- thoughts?
Schröder and Putin were good friends, don't you have good friends? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I do not think Putin is evil. His foreign policy is pretty good (i.e. sterering Russia as an independent force as opposed to marching along with the EU/NATO). He did manage to stabilize Russia, stamp out the Chechen terrorist rebellion and bump up the economy. The only thing that I really dislike about him is the fact that he has used his immense popularity to completely subjugate and disenfranchise his own people. That is pretty despicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
You mean that one where the organisation he headed had its operatives planting bombs in apartment blocks of Russian citizens and blaming it on chechen terrorists ??????Quote:
stamp out the Chechen terrorist rebellion
The scariest part about these occurrences is not what is happening now or, probably, not what will happen in the near future. The consequences will be felt when Putin is out of power, or until he goes a bit daft.
The best reason not to have voted for Putin in this instance was Putin himself. When you hand power over to one man or party, you effectively ban other "Putin's" (people with new ideas and charisma) from the competition. It may not seem this way now, but new direction will be harder to implement when this regime starts to go south... or south-er
...but what do I know, Im a 24 year old non-russian. I've always felt that Democracy and Republicanism were more of a speed bump in history than they were the road itself.
It is almost canon that russia likes a strongman at the helm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Putin is just carrying on that tradition, and the majority seem to approve.
Well, I know a little bit of history (including some of Russia's), but my question would be why exactly do people need/favor/prefer a strongman ? Insecurity, desire to be number 1, what ?
Are you saying that at this point it's just because "it's always been that way" ?
And I'm not sure I agree with the fact that most/a lot of these strongmen were also popular...
And yes, I agree that the economic impact from the oil money doesn't seem to favor the majority of the people, only the ones who are already rich beyond belief. So that argument kinda doesn't cut it for me... or at least this is my perception, from reading the papers and such (which might be insufficiently accurate, it's perfectly possible (either intentionally or not)).
Edit: The fact that the majority seems to approve is not sufficient for me to figure out why... for all I know, the masses will accept whatever they're being fed and believe it. There were lots of enthusiastic people who embraced communism, too, and for the same reason (and others, of course).
Viva le roi de les baggetes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I always view Putin with suspicion. He's planning something, I know it. :inquisitive: We (Armenia) need to break free from this aligning ourselves with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
All right.
I have already discussed it in details in TWC (sorry - less trolls than here), but I can write few thoughts here.
Russian democracy - I would say it is not Belorus or China (yet), because opposition still exists and certain rules of law are not broken (although many of them are used against the spirit of the law).
It is important to remember that currently not a single opposition party is in the parliament.
United Russia might be seen as the real Kremlin powerhouse, but in reality not a single of the remaining three parties in Duma can be described as opposition.
All of them support Putin with the PR creation called Fair Russia even founded with the loudly spoken purpose of adding more support for Putin and Kremlin in general.
Because the rule of law technically still exists it is not a full dictatorship, yet in reality it is only for show.
Neither of the state structures is independent anymore, all are parts of Kremlin bandwagon - either directly or through state-owned and private companies.
At certain level and in certain areas it is actually very close to a mafia-like organisation.
Of course that could be said about the Soviet Union, but the difference is currently it is more behind the stage and less solid so more vulnerable to faction wars.
In many ways the biggest problem for the ruling factions is a safe transfer of power without all those exhausting conflicts seen in the 1990s and the very presence of Putin as the 'father of the nation' serves this purpose well.
Of course I am not trying to say that Mr.Putin is a puppet - he certainly lead the powerful Petersburg faction closely linked to some of the many ex-KGB infested structures.
Currently it seems he will become either a 'super-president', a 'super-oligarch' or someone with power strong enough to prevent from most dangerous (to the ruling elite) conflicts to happen.
What about opposition, freedom of press, human rights etc.
Well...
The opposition - for now it is a chaotic mixture of various groups without a single, respectable leader which has only one common purpose - is against Putin.
Many of those parties are hardly civilised from our point of view, some would be banned altogether in many fully democratic states, but that serves the Kremlin to put all opposition organisations in one basket.
On the other hand - really democratic opposition is simply too weak to deal with the Kremlin controlled structures and for now most likely have to stick to the barbaric allies they have now.
For now Kremlin doesn't need to do much to deal with the opposition - brutal actions are hardly necessary and those which happened or will happen are mostly because of paranoia and overzealus approach of certain people.
In addition Kremlin uses public persecution, courts of law, police and other state structures to disrupt activities of the opposition - not by arresting them for political activity, but for hooliganism, extremism, computer piracy, tax evasion, debts, garbage dumping. Also tax controlls, administrative orders and 'coincidental' problems happen a lot e.g. once oppositon gathering couldn't start because for some reason manure was disposed in the place they were supposed to meet.
In general it is all happening without breaking any regulations of any kind.
Freedom of press and speech.
Technically still exists - the authorities are criticised by a number of newspapers, radiostations and sometimes some tv channels + internet of course, but because the range of such media is limited to few millions. Kremlin is rather happy with the fact it really owns all media of larger influence and range - and that is pretty enough.
In addition because in theory parties like fair Russia are opposing United Russia criticism of various politicians happens from time to time, or more often - also some of them are sacked 'because' of this criticism - of course it really doesn't matter because those people act like scape goats and the whole 'political debate' about them is a show for the public opinion.
Human rights
Are violated, but most of the society doesn't care about these as long as their wages are good and on time, Russia 'remains strong' in its foreign policy and TV tells them how good everything ois and will get better.
In a way really serious problems do not concern most people and there is not really anyone who could inspire such interest.
NGOs and human right activists are shown as western agents (often literally - 'working for dollars and euros') and problems with HR in western countries are shown to build the message 'they are not better than us' just like with the favourite Soviet phrase 'and you are beating the black people'.
Overall.
Russia is stilla democracy if we will read law literally and use quasi-logical arguments just like those comparing Chechen wars to NATO in Afghanistan or Kosovo - which look pretty fine to somone with basic knowledge about the subject, but very far from real in reality.
The reality is much different - it is a farce, a show, a theater or a circus where Kremlin writes the scripts and most of the audience doesn't really care.
The (remaining) good sides are that:
- constitution and law is in general not violated when it comes to the letter of the law,
- opposition can exist,
- areas of freedom of speech still exist too,
- extreme nationalism is not allowed to prosper beyond certain levels,
The entire rest is something to worry about, especially the fact that the authorities feed extreme nationalism when it suits them, official ideology is full of (moderate) nationalistic propaganda - so not patriotic and racism is already present in the law and most likely that will be something to worry about
more than anything else.
Hoping for the best I can assume that richer middle class (which is being formed) will grow up over consumption and start fighting for more, preparing for the worst I am afraid Kremlin will deal with that for decades and that Russia itself will gradually become more nationalistic and racist - so more and more dangerous.
According to long-term studies I have read the second is more probable.:book:
I hope someone will find those thoughts interesting.
Regards Cegorach
Good detailed post, thank you. Do you have some source cites for me to bone up further? I am regrettably, only fluent in English; but I can usually get the gist of material in French, German, Italian, or Spanish if I must -- but Cyrillics defeat me:shame: .
Yup, and that is Putin's genius, he realised that totally destroying opposition is counterproductive: it make you look bad and takes too much effort. Instead it is far better to merely marginalize the opposition to the point where their impact is virtually nil.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Actually it is even more cunning - after all there are four parties in Duma now and ALL in fact are backed or controlled by Kremlin.
Of course they are rivaling and criticising each other, but in questions of little importance to the general situation and so that it cannot affect the Kremlin controlled political scene in any way.
All 'represent' certain ideas or actually are supposed 'speak for' some people - Fair Russia was created only to undermine the communists and attract votes of people with left-wing ideas, but not too radical ones and unwilling to support United Russia. Communists and nationalists have their purpose too - in a way these both attract radical voters and scare more rational ones pushing them to vote for United Russia or Fair Russia.
It is like a perfect political environment - each party with their support groups, each plays its own part and they all ritually fight for the voters.
One, big show for the public.
Now add to that the fact that Russia has one of the best PR specialists (spin-doctors) - usually dealing with 'black PR' - who can safely exploit tactics which are impossible or very difficult to use in normal democratic states.
For example one of exceptionally successful tactics is to 'create' a fake candidate to elections. The guy preaches certain slogans which are very much alike like those of an opposition candidate. Such a candidate is not supposed to win anything, he is only to take some votes from an opposition leader and that is all.
The 'technical' (as they are called by some) candidates are usually 'produced' for more important election - for a president, in local elections for a mayor of a large city etc.
In the previous presidential elections there were at least 4 of them (those I can remember at least).
This invention was used in countires where Russian spindoctors are employed or where RF is sen as 'model democracy' to some people or parties - so the fake candidates were present in elections in Ukraine and Belorus. In fact in Belorus because of a number of 'fakes' even one real independent candidate (now in prison) who managed to humilate Lukashenko was seen by some as a Russian 'technical' candidate employed by Lukashenko himself to take distract the real opposition...
In Ukraine it was used as well, but with little success - the 'wonder weapon' didn't really work there.
So next time - in 2008 we can only speculate who will really be contesting in the presidential elections and who will be a puppet (of Putin ) or a fake ...
Yes, Russia is a mystery hidden in enigma...
@Seamus Fermanagh
Quote:
Good detailed post, thank you. Do you have some source cites for me to bone up further? I am regrettably, only fluent in English; but I can usually get the gist of material in French, German, Italian, or Spanish if I must -- but Cyrillics defeat me
I am interested in eastern affairs for 15 years, at least... so it is based on dozens of sources - most of those I cannot even recall at the moment - many of those are in Polish anyway which will not help you either.
But at least I can do one thing - Polish think-tank dealing with this subject Osrodek Studiów Wschodnich (Centre for Eastern Studies) provides interesting sources on regilar basis...
http://osw.waw.pl/en/eindex.htm
Its English section might be quite useful, I believe.:book:
Schröder wasn't, IMHO, a bad leader, and I almost always support the CDU (well, CSU...same thing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
It's fewer you non English speaking... :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
:laugh4: Just kidding. Two great and insightful posts. Your analysis is deeper than that of a lot of "professionals" I know. I wish I could read more about the strategies you claim he employs.
I don't think he was terrible, but rather mediocre. It seems to me that the only thing that drove him as chancellor was staying in power- something wich is probably best illustrated by how he (initially) insisted on staying chancellor after his electoral defeat in 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
But anyway, I only said that I was ticked off by his and others' apathy or outright sucking up to Putin. It's worth noting that recently, after Merkel received a visit from the Dalai Lama and got critizised by the Chinese government for it, Schroder entered the spotlight again and emphasized that he'd never have received him.
Understood. My apologies. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
None are necessary, but thanks :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Is there such thing as a Russian democracy? :inquisitive:
Ok, quick question for you all. Granted, these Russian elections weren't very competitive. Sure, to us Westerners, the whole electoral process looked a bit like a farce. Absolutely, Putin is a very powerful president with strong authoritarian leanings, who has in many ways consolidated power in the hands of his government, clamped down on freedom of the press, and marginalized the opposition.
But isn't there something to be said for the right of self-determination? Despite irregularities in the electoral process, the fact that Putin is immensely popular in Russia cannot be masked. And why shouldn't he be? Under his rule, Russia has seen undeniable economic recovery, and corruption in government and business has been reduced. If the Russian people have decided they want their Czars back, who are we to question their decision? What makes us so sure they haven't made the right choice for themselves?
The lesson here, I think, is that at the end of the day, most people prefer prosperity to liberty. We'll tolerate a little less freedom if it means food on the table, a roof over our heads, and of course, safety and security. It's not just the Russians, either - this tendency is very strong right here in the U.S.
Maybe the best thing right now is to stop bemoaning the inadequacy of Russian "democracy" and start treating Russia and its people with the respect due a great world power. I'm not saying their chosen form of government is the best for everyone - absolutely not - but for their unique situation, it might be the right one.
Just my thoughts,
-K
Russians are free to choose not to be free, that is their decision. If they want an autocrat in the office, fine. However, they should not get upset when we refuse to call Russia either free or democratic, because it isn't. Should we ruin our relationship with Russia just because it is not free? Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
Russia is a member of a number of international organisations and as such must expect that certain values, certain rules and certain ideas MUST be implemented or it will face consequences.
Of course they can become a pariah state if they want to, but if they like to keep their memberships in those organisations they must behave.
Note that the fact that Putin is popular or not doesn't really matter - the fact that some rules are BEING BROKEN all the time MATTER a lot.
One might actually be amazed why certain things have happened or are happening because many of the numerous breaches are not NECESSARY at all to achive the goals Kremlin tries to achive (or achived already) - it is either because of rampart paranoia or some unknown factors or both, but historically thinking Russian politics was never really rational...:juggle2:
It looks like cegorach's crystal ball really is crystal-clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Putin Agrees to Be Protégé’s Prime Minister . Under their current constitution, if the President dies or becomes unable to perform his duties, or otherwise steps down, who succeeds him?
(Hint: 2 words; rhymes with "time sinister")
Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Mr Putin certainly could teach Mr Chavez a lesson about how to bypass the (spirit of the) constitution with less ballyhoo but more effectively :juggle2:
@ Kommodus - but what we must consider is: Is he only popular because the people are offered few to no alternative views? From the sounds of it he controls the Main-stream Media, as well as an undoubtedly huge Public Relations team and without a necessarily free media no real criticism of him can occur.
It is much, much MORE because:
- criticism is mostly engineered by Kremlin (through parties such Zhirinovkiys nationalists or Faur Russia),
- criticism applies only to the 'bad officials' spoiling Putin's Plan (noone knows what it is) ensuring the myth of 'good Tzar' and bad officials still lives on,
- criticism often contains direct or indirect praise of Putin,
- criticism from the only half-independent opposition (communists) is a part of Kremlin PR - it has its own part to play in the huge PR campaign which is Russian politics,
- PR IS the Russian politics right now - real conflicts are behind closed doors like on a royal court in the old times, what is on TV is very much a virtual reality,
It is spin doctor's paradise.
@KukriKhan
It is still unclear because Putin wins by hiding his plans - for sure there are several factions in Kremlin and by confusing them Putin can achieve more than by openly admitting anything to the end. All of those factions have little or rather none alternative to Putin himself.Quote:
It looks like cegorach's crystal ball really is crystal-clear.
Putin Agrees to Be Protégé’s Prime Minister . Under their current constitution, if the President dies or becomes unable to perform his duties, or otherwise steps down, who succeeds him?
In my opinion he will keep the puppet as long as it pleases him - Medvedev is a man without support, free will essentially without a backbone so he is useful and as long as he remains useful he will stay.
For now he will play a strongman as a PM lecturing his ministers and firing them for corruption/incmpetence/something else that looks good and Medvedev will become 'a British Queen'...
I am not sure if it is really any useful to take the third term for Putin, after all you can be a PM as long as you like...
Besides if Putin gets bored he can always take 'refuge' as a super-oligarch - apparently his personal property is close to 40 billion $ more than enough to live a peaceful life provided he will keep it secure i.e. there will be no 'nw Putin' who would deal with him like Putin with Khodorkovskiy...:yes:
I must admit it is quite fascinating - essentially smoke and mirror politics upgraded to levels unheard of in history as long as I can think right now.