« Previous ·
Home
· Next »
Filed under: Russia
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 | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit
Comments
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.
Post a comment
TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/677
|