Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Russia Rapes Democracy

Filed under: Russia

abc_putin_080302_ms.jpg
Primary Suspects: And no, it's not a Photoshop

Yesterday, neo-Soviet Russians "voted" in "presidential elections" that inflicted upon the institution of democracy one of the most barbaric indignities she has seen from a major country in her whole experience on planet Earth. Collective farms named after Putin were forcing their employees to "vote" for his proxy successor, after whom they were naming streets. Reuters noted: "Not everyone in Gornovka, however, voted for Medvedev. Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov won the support of pensioners in a village whose other farm, only several kilometers away, is named after Soviet leader Josef Stalin."

In our sidebar, we post an original translation of an article from the Russian press by former Kremlin insider Andrei Illarionov, condemning the process in the most acidic manner possible. In his article, he adopts our longstanding practice of placing words like "president" in quotation marks where Russia is concerned.

Over on my Russia blog La Russophobe, we post another translation from the Russian press, this one an article in which the Russian author tries to draw comparisons between Putin's rule over Russia and Hitler's rule in Germany. The Kremlin's response to this article was to file criminal charges against the writer.

LR also offers its own editorial reflecting on the meaning of Russia's "elections" and drawing a very bleak picture of betrayal and, to all appearances, national suicide.

Last week, we reported on efforts by the Russian blogosphere to document, with mathematical precision, the extent to which Putin was willing to shamelessly manipulate the country's legislative elections last year. In one town, every single one of the 18,282 registered voters went to the polls, and every single one of them voted for Putin's party. You can be sure that, where the presidency is concerned, he would be prepared to go much farther, so attempting to discuss the details of the "voting" is a huge waste of time.

There was a time, not so long ago, when some among us were heard to argue that the people of Russia were as much victims of their government as we were. Predictions were made that if only they could manage to shake off their oppression, they would build a responsible democracy and join the community of nations as an ally. Just as the people of Russia have now utterly betrayed all the countless millions of their ancestors who were brutally cut down by the forces of dictatorship in the past, those apologists and collaborators who urged us to hesitate before confronting Russia, to understand the "position" of the Russian people, have betrayed us. It's time now for us to see them for what they were, our enemies, and to cast them out from out midst.

Neo-Soviet Russia stands before us. If we continue to see it through rose-colored glasses and wait for even more egregious misconduct before acting, we will have only ourselves to blame for the consequences. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"

Protest marches were scheduled throughout Russia for Monday.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


really? says:

'that inflicted upon the institution of democracy one of the most barbaric indignities she has seen from a major country in her whole experience on planet Earth'

Really Kim, today's 'election' is really as barbaric as oh let me think:
The 1956 crushing of Hungary's rebellion?
Tianamen square?
The repression/slaughter of protestors in Uzbekistan?
The 'dissapearence' of thousands of democracy advocates in Argentina and Brazil?
The murder of 3,000 people under Pinochet?

Is today's 'election' cynical? Yes. Is it democratic? No.

Is it one of the most 'barbaric' acts in human history? I don't see how one can possibly argue that.

AUTHOR RESPONDS: I don't know what planet you are on, you freakishly stupid loser, but none of the events you describe were done in the name of democracy, much less in the course of an election, as were the events described in this post. You really should try to think at least a little before you post your gibberish, and at least read what I've actually written, because you are embarrassing my blog with your pollution and I won't allow it to continue. I didn't say it was "one of the most barbaric acts in human history" I said it was one of the most "barbaric indignities" upon the democratic process. Your ability to comment on this blog is a privilege, not a right. Think about it, very little, very stupid boy.


Vova says:

Kim, you are dignifying this farce, insult, and mockery with a comment. Remember what our great Leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky said on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov?
Illarionov's "February Talking Points Memo" incensed Kremlin not because he did it "in the most acidic manner possible" but because it is an action plan, a political platform.
By the way, there are parallels with none other than G. Gordon Liddy. G-man once said that if a masked gunman is breaking down your door you should shoot to kill, aiming at the center of mass (he is an ex-FBI agent after all). G-man was accused by the vermin and lunatic left of calling for killing gestapo agents because the man breaking down your door could have been one of Janet Reno's stormtroopers. Well, Illarionov says pretty much the same thing: you can kill a person breaking down your door regardless of whether he is in uniform or in plain clothes. If I were one of the Kremlin or Lubyanka blood-sucking ticks I'd be pissed too (pardon my language)


Pimpocracy says:

Democracy deserved it, she was acting like a total slut.

AUTHOR's NOTE: I've decided to leave this barbaric statement on the blog since it serves to emphasize the truly animalistic attitudes of those who support the status quo in Russia today. However, I apologize to anyone who might be, quite rightfully, offended by its crude and malignant nature.


not so fast kim says:

"I don't know what planet you are on, you freakishly stupid loser, but none of the events you describe were done in the name of democracy"

Really Kim, the protesters in Tianamen square that built a gigantic replica of the statue of liberty weren't protesting in favor of democracy? Funny, I thought they, and every person with an IQ over 70 that's written about the event, saw it differently.

Same thing with the Hungarians in 1956; I thought they were trying to overthrow the brutal Soviet-backed tyranny in favor of a representative (or at the very least more representative) government; I guess not!

How very Clintonian of you to note that none of the examples I listed were "in the course of an election." Did I say they were? No, I said they were directed against democracy. I wasn't aware that indignities against democracy could only be perpetrated during an election.

Having studied political science in an Ivy-League university, I thought one of the most basic parts of the 'democratic process' was the ability to publicly protest for redress against your government. Therefore if the government mows down (that means kills, Kim, since you seem to be unfamiliar with standard written English) thousands of people that are publicly arguing for democracy, I and my puny little brain consider that to be a bit more of an "indignity" than large-scale ballot-stuffing.

Is this really that complicated of a position to understand?

Since you seem to lack the ability to understand points that lurk within paragraphs, I've made a handy little list.

Media intimidation and manipulation = bad
Ballot stuffing and electoral fraud = worse
Mass Murder of innocents using tanks and automatic weapons = far worse still


I really do wonder what sort of language you would use to describe today's Russia if it ever sunk to a circa 1989 China, or 1973 Chile, level of physical repression and violence. Since they're already the world's most barbaric country, what would they then become? The Solar system's worst? The Galaxy's? The entire universe's?


Vova says:

A picture is better that a thousand words. Listening to Messrs Pu and Med live was even better. Later on Radio Liberty did a lampoon version superimposing Pu & Med on some music.
But there was voting yesterday albeit without elections. By accepting the farce people voted for the status quo. The Armenians, on the hand, voted with their lives.
In "Change Without Hope" in todays's gazeta.ru Milov is more upbeat than the usual suspects but acknowledges that the newly anointed capo is neither pro-Westrern nor a Liberal. Most importantly, "Russia" herself is sliding into irrelevancy. We can only hope that whoever wins in November treats "Russia" as an irrelevant outcast, a rogues. Upper Volta with a gas pipeline


oh vova says:

"Upper Volta with a gas pipeline"

Vova, you idiot, "Upper Volta with a gas pipeline" doesn't make any sense. The phrase you're trying to ape is "Upper Volta with rockets" which was a snide, and effective, jab because made by an ambassador to the Soviet Union. It conveyed the Soviet Union's militarism along with its total lack of economic assets (when the famous quip was delivered, I believe Upper Volta was the world's poorest country).

An "Upper Volta with a gas pipeline" negates the whole point of the quote. If Upper Volta had a gas pipeline it wouldn't BE the Upper Volta referred to in the quote, the world's poorest country, because it would have serious economic (instead of purely military) leverage.

Talking about an "Upper Volta with a gas pipeline" is like talking about a "Saudi Arabia without oil;" it's a futile intellectual exercise dealing in an absurd hypothetical. The point is Upper Volta didn't have a gas pipeline but Russia does, which gives it a hell of a lot of leverage in today's energy-starved world (the fact that Russia has pipelines and a lot of oil/gas to put through them is a good part of why you people fear/hate/despise it so much.

Kim, can't you and your readers do any better? You all seem to have lost the ability to either think coherently or read and comprehend basic English syntax (or in some cases, both).


Mr. Grammar says:

Kim,
When the commenter called you a "slut," you apologized for the comment's "crude and malignant nature." Again, bad immigrant English. A crude comment doesn't have a "malignant nature." It sounds like Borat with a Thesaurus. Go back to your TOEFL classes.


Vova says:

Personally, Mr. Grammar, I do not see any contradiction. Why can't a statement be both crude and malignant? One can be both sick and ugly, right?


Misha says:

These are such exciting times with the recent Russian election. Power only changes every 4 years in Russia (and usually every 8 years, because the last two presidents both served two terms). This election is truly a historical experience and it is very exciting. This election marks the third peaceful (constitutional) transition of power in a row for Russia since the end of communism.

I think Dmitri Mevedev will make a great President for Russia. He is a very intelligent man and he has been in President Putin's inner circle for a long time. He is young (42), intelligent, hard working, good looking, diplomatic and most importantly highly capable. (President Putin would not have endorsed Medvedev if he was not thoroughly convinced that Medvedev was the best man for the job.)

In terms of substance the two men are identical; this is good as this will maintain stability and continuity in Russia. In terms of style Medvedev is the more diplomatic, elegant and photogenic of the two men; he is not saddled with the "ex-KGB" stigma that former President Putin had. This will allow President Mevedev to start with a clean slate.

Medvedev himself is an economic pro-market liberal and his views are widely known and respected in Western liberal circles.

Medvedev has said that one of the key objectives during his first term will be an reform and improvement in Russian agriculture. Russia will set up a system of agricultural subsidy supports for Russian farmers, such as the American and European have. This should allow Russian agriculture to compete in global markets on a more level playing field; and it will also lower food prices for Russian consumers.

In foreign policy President Medvedev will be able to hold his own, but he will also have the wise council of his long-time friend and mentor Vladimir Putin on hand any time he needs it.

As I look to the future I am optimistic; I can only see brighter days ahead for Russia and her people. Sure that will displease the Russia-haters, such as the author of this blog. The better Russia does the more they fume, and lose their minds; but the more ridiculous they make themselves look the less seriously anyone takes them.


Misha says:

There is simply no better person that Putin could have chosen to endorse in this election. Dmitri Medvedev is a pro-market liberal reformer. Medvedev will complete the task of setting up something like an American two-party system in Russia.

Right now Russia has a single ruling party, and the "big tent" of Putin's United Russia Party has to accomodate everyone. Of course a single ruling party is not unique at all in the world, as it was the case in Japan, Turkey, Mexico, S.Korea Taiwan and countless other countries for decades after World War 2. During a period of transition or turmoil, the stability of a single ruling party or coalition is invaluable. (The United States has not one but two ruling parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The competition between them gives something like an illusion of democracy in the US)

Japan was ruled by a single ruling party for 48 years after the war, and the US did all in its power to keep that single party in power. The US CIA funneled money into Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) party to keep it in power and to defeat its leftist opposition. Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA113DF93AA35753C1A962958260

Under the leadership of President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia will complete its transition from a single-party system to a two-party system in much less time than it took the countries above. Vladimir Putin will provide support from the parliamentary side.

In every way Russia continues to make steady progress towards becoming a normal market-driven democratic country, and Russia is doing so at a break-neck pace, much faster than other countries were able to make such a transition. This is due to the exceptional leadership abilities of men like Vladimir Putin and Dimitry Medvedev. Hats off to you gentlemen!

Today's Russia-haters do not want Russia to succeed in its invertible transformation into a pro-market sovereign democracy. They do not want freedom, democracy and prosperity for Russia, but they want to control Russia. They had that control during a brief time in the 1990's, under the rule of the alcoholic Yeltsin and the criminal band of gangster-oligarchs who supported and surrounded him. But Russia herself rose up and took control away from these criminals, and they shall never have such power over Russia again! This above all things is the source of the animus of the Russia-haters against all things Russian. The last thing the Russia-haters want to see is the rise of a free, sovereign-democratic and truly prosperous Russia. They would rather have Russia perceived as being "totalitarian" (or for Russia to actually be totalitarian) than to have Russia succeed without them being able to re-establish their control. But as long as Russia is lead by true patriots as capable as Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev, Russia's enemies will never overcome her. Russia's success is assured and our enemies will never prevail against us!


JOHN says:

waht is the going rate for CIA/MI5/MOSSAD propagandist this week?

YOU LOWLIFE CIA SCUM!! THAT MONEY YOU GET FOR YOUR LOWLIFE BEHAVOUR WILL CHOKE YOU IN YOUR THROAT. YOU LOWLIFE SCUM.


Vova says:

Misha, the motherland is calling you. Come back home, son.
Родина мать зовёт!


Misha says:

President Putin has spoken at length about the need for Russia to establish strong democratic institutions. But Putin was also warned that that these newborn institutions of democracy must also be protected against Russia's powerful enemies, who would infiltrate and undermine those institutions in order to hijack the Russian state from within, for the purpose of destroying it.

Putin introduced the concept of Sovereign Democracy by which Russia will embrace democracy but reject the interference or influence of outside (non-Russian) entities and agencies in Russian elections. Those would would interfere in Russian elections are the well-financed western intelligence agencies (especially the US Central Intelligence Agency), who do so through a variety of innocuous-sounding "NGO" organizations. They also funnel funds and other technical support to selected parties and candidates in Russia. In addition to this, the threat posed by the billionaire-oligarchs has not totally dissipated either.

The United States has a 240 year tradition of democracy and strong democratic institutions (such as the two main political parties, Democratic and Republican). In a country such as the USA, a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg can ponder running for president. HE can think about simply bypassing the entire political process, the primaries, party caucuses, and all the rest of it. He can think about spending his billions simply to buy the name recognition, media coverage and other support he would need to win.

But in the end, the democratic institutions in the USA are so strong that not even a billionaire can ride roughshod over them. When he honestly thinks about it, even a Michael Blumberg must conclude that in all likelihood he would spend all his billions and still loose the election. The party-apparatus and other institutions of democracy are so strong in America that they can withstand the threat posed by an American media oligarch, and his threat to simply "buy" the US presidency.

But Russia by contrast does not have a 240 year tradition of building democratic institutions. Russia's democratic institutions, such as they are, are fragile infants who were only born within the past several years. It is not inconceivable that one of the "Russian" oligarchs could attempt to use his ill-gotten wealth to undermine and influence the Russian electoral process, or to even finance his own rise to power in Russia.

Lest anyone think such concerns are unwarranted and only some ridiculous "paranoia," we must remember that such was actually the case in Russia. The Russian security services did not act preemptively, but only at the last possible minute, when action could no longer be delayed. The handful of new Billionaires who suddenly emerge from nowhere inside of formerly socialist Russia after the fall of the USSR were in fact in the process of using their ill-gotten wealth to take control over the organs of Russian media and state. It was only when action could no longer be deferred that the Russian Security Services were forced to act.

Vladimir Putin is not a "dictator" nor a "tyrant." He does not desire a return to the Soviet System and nothing that he's done as president could lead one to think that he does desire such a return. But Putin as a Russian Patriot who is guiding Russia along the path of "Sovereign Democracy."

I will point out yet again that for all the criticism that President Putin has faced from abroad, he has remained remarkably popular among the Russian people, who have given Putin a favorable rating throughout his presidency. If what we are speaking about is "Russian Democracy," then the mandate of the Russian people is what we ought to be talking about.

As everyone knows former president Boris Yelsin gave Vladimir Putin his endorsement and Putin went on to win the election. Now President Putin has given his endorsement to Dmitry Medvedev and Medvedev has also won.

Assuming Medvedev continues the highly successful policies of President Putin (as he's said he will do), then we can safely assume Medvedev will win re-election after his first term. Then, near the end of Medvedev's 2nd term he will need to decide who to endorse.

I think that it is vital that by the time Medvedev leaves office, that Russia has established a functional 2nd party (in addition to the ruling United Russia party). This 2nd party will change the dynamics of Russian politics in the post-Medvedev era. Instead of Medvedev "hand picking" his successor (who then is almost 100 percent sure of winning), we would see Medvedev simply "endorse a candidate." Then, assuming there is a viable 2nd party, the outcome of the election will not seem so assured. Indeed, there would be a very real chance that the candidate Medvedev endorsed might not win.

In fact--follow with me here--it would almost be better if the candidate Medvedev endorses does not win in 2016. This would eliminate the appearance that the presidency was something that was just being handed on to "hand-picked" successors, within the membership of a special closed political club.

No one could claim Russia was undemocratic if it had fair contested elections, where the outcome was not certain (where candidate that the president endorsed was not assured of winning and where he even lost).

The truth is that Russia is already as Democratic as most countries in the West. There is not a huge difference between a system with one ruling party (Japan, Korea, Mexico, etc.) and a system with two ruling parties that essentially act as one on all important questions (the United States).

Russia's shortfall is not in the actual degree of democracy that Russia has vs. most Western countries, but rather in the execution. Russia's current system allows Russia to by cynically and hypocritically attacked by her enemies on the basis that Russia is "undemocratic." Successful reforms in the political sphere can eliminate this vulnerability.


Misha says:

The way to defeat Russia's enemies is not to suppress the opposition, but to become the opposition.

Why should Russia's security services care which of two candidates wins if both of them are equally responsible on the important questions of national security?

The truth is that people like to have a choice and they like being asked their opinion. So an election is better when it is a battle between two (responsible) candidates, and there really is some genuine uncertainty about the outcome until after the ballots are actually counted.

Russia can do two-party.


colleen says:

Misha, A Just Russia was set-up to be the responsible opposition party, but it never caught on.

In the U.S., the charade has been accomplished by creating two identical parties, accessorized differently.

Some say big government vs. small government is the key difference, although it's funny how much the government has grown under Bush.

So, maybe, Medvedev can increase government spending. Raise pensions, wages, and provided-for services. Become a socialist-type. Taxes will probably be raised.

Medvedev will become popular in a sense to some, but not to others, who yearn for the return of Putin...

Leading to an election in 2012 dubbed "Teacher vs. Pupil" by the creative headline writers at the New York Post: The right-to-moderate Putin vs. the left-to-moderate Medvedev.

It can happen.


Vova says:

Colleen, honey, you got it wrong. Neither Pu nor Med is left, right, moderate, liberal, or conservative. They don't have a political agenda. They are thugs and thus have only a criminal agenda, like, e.g., Manuel Noriega (no offence, general, for comparing you to this slime)


Misha says:

Here's the script: Dmitri Mevdedev is sworn into office and he appoints former President Vladimir Putin as his prime minister. For a while the two men are a cozy as two peas in a peapod, often appearing together in public.

But then there is some incident or some political disagreement which causes a very public falling out between the two men. Then the disagreement between the two political titans turns bitter. Putin is either fired by Medvedev or he resigns. (Behind the scenes the two men remain as friendly and united as ever, but they cannot appear together in public for obvious reasons.)

Putin has a seat guaranteed in the parliament, but now Putin’s “arch political rival” Dmitri Medvedev is the nominal head of Putin’s old United Russia party, so Putin is forced to start a new party.

Putin then starts the work of building a 2nd Russian Patriotic Union political party (center-right). This party will form the basis of a 2nd political party in a new two-party Russian system. In the 2012 elections, Medvedev will run against the Putin-endorsed candidate from Russian Patriotic Union (but not Putin himself). It will look for all the world like a bitter political contest. Who will win? It won’t matter. When it’s over Russia will have established a two-party system that no one can claim is not democratic. (It would essentially be an identical political system to the two-party system in effect in the United States.)


colleen says:

Vova, if you define "thugs" as uncorruptable patriots and if you define "criminal agenda" as ending American imperialism and creating a multipolar world, then, sure, Putin and Medvedev are "thugs and thus have only a criminal agenda."

#

p.s. I've been following some your comments recently and, boy, you sure have emotional issues if you hate Russia so much and say so many bad things about it. Perhaps you oughta seek help?

Or just stop living in the past and becoming paranoid about Russia regaining its strenth. Misha said it perfectly: "Sure that will displease the Russia-haters, such as the author of this blog. The better Russia does the more they fume, and lose their minds; but the more ridiculous they make themselves look the less seriously anyone takes them."

That is you vova.

Just sayin'.


Vova says:

Thanks for help, Colleen. If I am such a sicko, why are you reading my posts in particular and this hateful blog in general? Wouldn't you be better off watching some warmed over Russian puke on state TV?


Misha says:

Clearly Putin would lead the center-right party and Medvedev (being the more liberal of the two) would lead the center-left.

Once Putin is out of power some time, after the "falling out" between the two men, Putin would begin to bash Medvedev for
"not spending more on the military," and "not intervening militarily" in some Kosovo-like incident somewhere in the world, etc., etc. All of this will strongly establish Putin's "right wing" and "hawk" credentials, against Medvedev's liberal "dove"; so Putin could gather in all the wandering right wingers and ultra-nationalists that currently have no where else to go in Russia (in a responsible way though, of course).

Then, when Putin's new center-right party challenges Medvedv's center-left United Russia for the Presidency, you could see how the West would favor Medvedev and United Russia (and the CIA would probably even secretly approach them with offers of funds).

Ah yes, the next few years ought to be interesting indeed in Russia.


colleen says:

Misha, we agree on everything except one thing:

I think the west would favor Putin.

The west wants to dissavow with socialism at any costs. It's all about lower taxes, economic reforms, deregulation, open markets, and privatization.

The west is willing to give-up its first-born for these things and have supported candidates like Merkel and Sarkozy, who pledged to make these things happen in their countries.

Because, Misha, you have to remember that it's all about the top 1% and how they can become wealthier. That is the cornerstone of our government, the idea that our world revolves around.

Therefore, I believe that the west will support Putin when he runs against Medvedev in 2012.

But the next few years will be interesting, yes. Especially in regards to the role of the "dollar" (I am putting quotes around the term "dollar" from now on to denote its worthlessness).


Misha says:

Coleen, you are right.. We agree on everything except whether the west will throw its support behind Putin or Medvedev in 2012 (when “teacher runs against student.”)

I simply think that Putin is the more obvious villain, due to his KGB background, and due to the fact that he’s a known quantity (having run Russia for the past 8 years). Putin was in office just long enough, and he was just successful enough with his reforms, to turn Russia’s enemies in the west hard against him (as we can see every day). Now Putin will go into semi-retirement, as Medvedev takes over. By all accounts Medvedev has impeccable liberal and pro-market credentials. He has no mysterious KGB past. He is really starting with a clean slate.

So Medvedev can hit the ground running and establish his credentials as a “pro-western” reformer, but always being slowed or stopped by his prime mister Putin (who is of the old KGB school). At some point the two men will have a falling out and will then become each other’s bitter political enemies. (This will all be for show, as the two men will remain united and best friends behind the scenes.)

Then Putin will be fired as Medvedev’s prime minister (or he will resign). At that point Putin then starts a new political party, which will be center-right (as opposed to Medvedev’s United Russia, which will assume the center-left mantle.

A president or a prime minister must be very careful what he says or does, as he is in office, and he has the full weight of responsibility for anything he says or does. But someone who is not in office has more freedom, as the responsibility of the office is not theirs. So, for example, we see all three presidential candidates shooting from the hip now on Russia and attack Bush’s “Putin is a man we can do business with – I saw his soul” remarks. But if any one of them is successful and becomes president, he (or she) will need to tone down that rhetoric, as they will have the full weight of responsibility for the reality of the American-Russian relationship (which is probably one of the most important bi-lateral relationships in the world, in terms of preventing WWIII).

Likewise a Putin in office (as President or Prime Minister) must be responsible as well. But a Putin freed from office suddenly acquires an enormous freedom to do and say whatever he wants. He can actually answer back aggressively at remarks such as the ones Hillary and McCain are now making about him. (But Medvedev will be in office, and he will lack this freedom.)

Putin is the natural center-right candidate, and his strong credentials on national security make him the obvious center-right candidate. He is also considered to be a reincarnation of Joseph Stalin (if not Satan incarnate) by many of Russia’s enemies. Therefore in the wresting match between Putin and Medvedev, Putin is the natural “bad guy,” if he is willing to play this part. (The west already thinks the worst about Putin anyway, so why should he object?)

Putin will form a new center-right party, and he will begin sharply criticizing Medvedev on national security issues. Putin will challenge Medvedev to “cut off Europe’s gas” and engage in many other provocations. His center-right party will be able to capitalize on broad Russian antipathy towards the West. Putin’s party will be able to unite Russia’s right-wingers, ultra-nationalists and skinhead types (who currently lack any real political outlet in Russia), as well as the more responsible and moderate center-right political elements. (In a sense Putin would be playing the part of a Russian Ronald Reagan.)

Then, after Putin marshals “all the political forces of evil and hell in Russia” (or so it will appear in the West), and gives those forces a new political direction, he will run against Dmitri Medvedev’s “liberal” United Russia party in 2012. For the West it will be a no-brainer. They will not want to see their old arch-enemy Vlad Putin come back to power, more energized than ever, with a new coalition of right forces. Therefore they will naturally throw their support behind Medvedev in a big way. The West will cut off its support for the other so-called “opposition” candidates, who don’ have more than 1 or 2 percent support in Russia anyway, for fear of splitting Medvedev’s left-support. (Kasparov is something of a Ralph Nader of Russian politics.)

If all of this can be accomplished (and why can’t it?) then Russia’s leadership will have succeeded in completely redrawing the political map in Russia and transforming its relations with the west over the next 4 years.


Vova says:

Kommarid ahju


Misha says:

The reality of Russian politics is that Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party is just that: a big tent which is large enough to accommodate just about everyone in Russia. This makes Russia a state with a single ruling party. But in this regard Russia is not all unique. Many countries have had a single ruling party in control for decades if not for generations. On that list would be Japan, S.Korea, Tiawan, Mexico, Turkey and many other countries. The argument can certainly be made that a predictable ruling party makes for stability in countries that have recently experienced remarkable turmoil, even if it is not an ideal political model for perpetuity.

As I pointed out earlier, in the case of Japan, the US Central Intelligence Agency gave millions of dollars to Japan’s ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), in order to keep it in power for 40 years after the Second World War (and to keep any other Japanese party from coming to power).
Source: CIA, NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA113DF93AA35753C1A962958260

The largest element of the political opposition to Vladimir Putin’s United Russia is not Gary Kasparov or any of the other elements in Russia who have now assume the mantle of “the official opposition” for themselves. None of these groups has more than 1 or 2 percent support in Russia, even though they receive an enormous amount of money and other assistance from their western backers.

If there is anything like a real “opposition” in Russia, it is not the cosmopolitan coffee shop intellectuals that the west likes to fund; rather the real opposition in Russia comes from the right, in the form of right-wing ultra-nationalists and even skinhead, racist, xenophobic and neo-Nazi elements. These elements occupy a much larger fraction of the Russian political landscape than is generally acknowledged, and they certainly have a larger base of support in Russia than the self-appointed and self-important “opposition” that the west loves to coddle so much. If these right wing and nationalistic elements do not have greater representation in Russian politics, it is precisely because the state machinery of the Russian Federation has essentially disentranced them. These ultra-right elements are regularly harassed by the authorities and they have been prevented from allowing their candidates to register to stand in elections, and so forth.

There is no reason why United Russia should not be allowed to maintain itself as the single party in Russia, as was the case in so many other countries which had a single ruling party for decades, while the west didn’t bat an eye about it. I certainly would not argue that having a single ruling party is an ideal situation, and Russia should never aspire to anything more than that. It should not be something permanent. But I would argue that United Russia is maintaining stability and creating the conditions for a genuine improvement of the quality of life for Russian citizens, and moving Russia in the right direction, towards the construction of stronger democratic institutions in Russia.

United Russia has behaved with remarkable responsibility and restraint in its role as Russia’s ruling party, and it certainly would receive credit for that, if it existed in any other country in the world that had just gone through what Russia went through. But the singular hypocrisy that the west demonstrates in all things pertaining to Russia is breathtaking. Instead of granting Russia credit for its remarkable accomplishments, the west has cynically chosen to attack Russia for its “lack of democracy” (the glass being obviously “half empty,” if only in Russia’s case).

The West has thrown its support behind an “official opposition” that consists of such elements as “Weird Al Gary Kasparov,” who has almost no political support in Russia itself, and behind the exiled “oligarchs” who are positively reviled across the length and breadth of a Russia that can still remember the chaos and poverty of the 1990’s, the last time the oligarchs were allowed anywhere near the levers of power in Russia.

In order to make a way out of this impasse, I believe that Russia must allow the real political opposition in Russia (the ultra-nationalist far right) to become politically incarnate, through some unified political party. Only then will Russia be able to convince the West that Vlad Putin’s big tent, United Russia, is not the “threat” that they portray it as, but rather it is an exceptionally responsible and moderating political force in Russian and in the world, and one they ought to be supporting instead of undermining.


P. Aeneas says:

I won't even bother to comment on the 'issues' being discussed here, as this comment thread has seemed to have morphed into some kind of Comintern rally.

What I really wanted to comment on was the picture, which I still find hard to believe isn't a photoshop. The vibe given off by those two is like a cross between Mad Max and the Harkonnens from Dune. Very creepy.


Misha says:

the Pic is obviously a photo shop... What bus did you just fall off of?


misha says:

Previously I spoke about US support for states with single "ruling parties," such as Japan, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Turkey and on and on and on.

Of course I didn't even mention US support for outright dictatorships, as the USA is the #1 supporter and enabler of dictatorships in the world today, with support for the King of Saudi Arabia (a place with no human, religious or woman's rights), Pakistan, the president-for-life Fidel Mubarak in Egypt, the president of Jordan, Pinochet, the Shaw of Iran, and on and on and on.

Here US President Bush gives a big wet lip-smack to the US-supported oil dictator in Saudi Arabia (a country that stones female rape victims because they must have turned their victims--the rapists--on.

and NO, this is NOT photoshop: http://www.hillbillyreport.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/bush_kissweb.jpg

Bush holds hands too: http://bp1.blogger.com/_aEctS1LWEZw/R1TDpgxVYnI/AAAAAAAAAQc/fnEfntipKso/s1600-R/bush_saudi.jpg

Here Bush smooches with pro-war US Senator Joseph Lieberman: ttp://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/renarf/joementum.jpg

http://images.washtimes.com/photos/full/20050425-105544-6377.jpg

http://data1.blog.de/media/527/1437527_91ed4e64df_m.jpeg

http://www.hillbillyreport.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/bush_kissweb.jpg



misha says:

Correction:
Here Bush smooches with pro-war US Senator Joseph Lieberman: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/renarf/joementum.jpg


Vova says:

No photoshopping here, just creeps looking like creeps. They don't need any embellishment because they want to look like creeps--it sells to the local Nazis.
The Comintern discussion is comic relief. The kids mistake the shithole of a cesspit for a country (they call it "Russia") and the maggots and vermin swarming there--for people






jordan shoes says:

we prefer to buy a pair of cheap nike Shoes if they'r the same of brand.we can feel it comfortable what brought
by Air Jordan Shoes,but also relaxing from Jordan Kicks.once u wear Jordan Shoes,even u think u'r the NO.1,
you'r be more confident than before .i like Jordan Shoes.


jordan shoes says:

we prefer to buy a pair of cheap nike Shoes if they'r the same of brand.we can feel it comfortable what brought
by Air Jordan Shoes,but also relaxing from Jordan Kicks.once u wear Jordan Shoes,even u think u'r the NO.1,
you'r be more confident than before


jordan shoes says:

Jordan Shoes: Nike Jordan, Air Jordan Shoes and Nike Dunks are on sale here today; Nike Shoes you are looking for are availabe.
Basketball Shoes include:Air Force Ones, Nike Air Forces, Nike Air Force one 1, Nike Dunks, Nike Dunk SB, Nike Air Jordans, Air Jordan Shoes.
Jordan Shoes,Nike Jordans,Wholessale Nike shoes,Wholesale Air Jordans, Wholesale Air Force Ones.
Shoes like:Nike Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Dunk Shoes,SB Kicks,Air Jordan Shoes, Bathing Apes Bapes, Greedy Genius Shoes,Reebok,Pumas,Adidas,Cheap Nike Shoes.


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/677