« Previous ·
Home
· Next »
Filed under: Russia
Two bills are moving rapidly through the Russian parliament which neatly encapsulate the tyrannical attitude of the dictator Vladimir Putin towards the institution of democracy and, indeed, the very concept of freedom itself. Amazingly, though Russia has just held a national election, neither one was any part of the campaign -- a neat testament to the reckless disregard for citizenship duties evinced by the people of Russia.
On Wednesday the Duma (Russia's lower house of parliament), as the International Herald Tribune reported, "backed new restrictions on foreign investment, limiting access to strategic sectors like oil and gas, aerospace and mass media." The bill passed by the overwhelming margin of 384-55, and the AP reports that it "is raising concern among foreign investors since it widens the powers of Russian security services in business transactions."
Then on Friday, the Duma voted 363-8 Friday to approve new restrictions on national referendums. To protest the measure, more than 50 members of the Communist Party got up and walked out of the chamber before the vote. Jurist reports: "Referendums are binding under Russian law, and the new restrictions effectively bar referendums on issues including the national budget, taxes and treaties. Communist party members objected to the proposal, saying it deprives Russian citizens of their right to voice their opinion on important national issues." The AP reported Communist lawmaker Alexander Kulikov declaring: "We, the popularly elected lawmakers, are practically stripping the people of being able to express their will and speak out at a referendum. Passing this bill will mean that we're asking people to shut up."
In each case, measures that should at the very least be controversial cruised through the 450-member legislature with at least an 80% majority. Though Putin's party of power, United Russia, won only 64% of the vote in the last parliamentary elections, it was awarded 70% of the seats in the Duma. Together with the sycophantic "Fair Russia" group, the Kremlin directly controls the votes of nearly 78.5% of the body, and on top of that can count on routine support from maniacal ultranationalists of Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party, which controls an additional 8%. As Michael Ivdov notes in the New Republic, this is what Putin's Goebbels, the demonic Vladislav Surkov, "terms suverennaya demokratiya ('sovereign democracy') and what's been rechristened, in liberal circles, suvenirnaya demokratiya: 'souvenir democracy'."
That creaking sound you hear is an iron curtain descending once again across the continent. Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain.
Talk about neo-Soviet! The only "opposition" to speak of in the Russian parliament left after Putin's purges are the dogged Communists, who control 11.5% of the seats. They are hardly a beacon light of progressive thought, to say the least. Russia's "people's house" has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for the regime just as it was in Soviet times. Blind the consequences, neo-Soviet Russia hurtles once again into the abyss.
NOTE: Publius Pundit no longer accepts comments directly on our posts. Instead, once per week we will publish a "letters to the PP" feature in which readers with meritorious observations will get to see their views published on the main page of the blog. If you would like to have a letter considered for publication, send it to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
Social Bookmarking:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit
Comments
misha says:
Sparky wrote, "Putin is a very smart and capable leader... That being said, what about the who will be the president in 10 years? No one knows what he will be like. He may be foolish and cruel (the opposite of Putin) and there will be no way to stop him. That is the problem; not necessarily Putin."
I don't think that anyone doubts the necessity, or at least the desirability of strengthening and expanding Russia's democratic institutions. The idea is not that Putin is creating a new permanent system in Russia. But Putin's first order of business, after coming to power, was to stabilize the patient and stop the hemorrhaging, which he now seems to have accomplished rather admirably. (At least the vast majority of Russians think so and it is their opinion that counts).
The challenge is to build strong democratic institutions in Russia which will establish a representative democracy but also safeguard Russia's sovereignty and security from the foreign-based efforts to use Russia's infant democratic institutions as a vehicle to undermine and destroy Russia. President Putin understands this challenge acutely, coming as he does from a previous career in Russia's security services. Indeed in some ways it would be hard to imagine Russia having better leadership than it currently does. Putin has shown himself to be a remarkably able leader.
I think that the establishment of strong democratic institutions in Russia is a long-term project which may require years or even decades to fully complete; it's certainly not something to be done in an afternoon, or by simply sweeping away law and order and bringing back the regime of anarchy and oligarch rule which we saw in the 90's.
Making Russia fully democratic is not as simple as simply shifting a few dials and switches, or replacing one government with another. The root of such a project must be to change the thinking and the mindset of Russia's people, who are not accustomed to democracy. Certainly headway must be made in reducing corruption. The idea that government service should be seen as a way to enrich oneself must give way to the idea that government exists to serve the people. This is a years-long (if not decades-long) process, and it must be done with extraordinary care. Russia will move at its own pace and it will not be lectured to (or dictated to) by those in the west who should be focused on solving some of their own problems before they go putting their noses in places where they don't belong.
As I pointed out in previous posts, Russia is hardly the only country which is (or has been) ruled by a mildly authoritarian single-party state. This was true of Japan, which was ruled by a single party for 40 years after WWII. It was also true of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and many many other countries almost too numerous to mention. The US supported these single-ruling-party states and in many cases even financed their rise to power and the suppression of opposition.
Egypt is a good friend of the USA and the recipient of billions of dollars in US foreign aid every year. How long has Egypt's "president" Mubarak been in power? 35 years? Now he is preparing his son to take over the throne. Many memebers of the Islamic opposition are in prison, and they certainly don't have anything like full rights to free speech and a free press. It's blindingly obvious that there isn't anything even like a real multi-party democracy in Egypt. But the US still supports the Egyptian government. Why? Could it be that the US values stability and order in Egypt more than any ideal of pure democracy (and the pandemonium and chaos it would invariably bring in Egypt)?
The Bush administration pushed for the Palestinian Authority to hold free elections. Who did Miss Condoleezza think Palestinians were going to vote for in these "fair elections"? Republicans? Libertarians? No, instead they brought Hamas to power in a perfectly free perfectly fair vote.
Notice that I didn't even mention all the outright dictatorships that the US supports and has supported (king of Jordan, king of Saudi Arabia, Shaw of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, and on and on...) I only mentioned a a few more or less "authoritarian" governments which the US presently supports. All these countries go through the motions of having elections, but the outcome is always certain. (The ruling party always wins, surprise surprise; I guess that's why they call it a "ruling party.")
So why does the US have the double standard with Russia then? It's obviously because the US can't control the Russian government, like it controls (or at least strongly influences) the governments in those other examples. The US is certainly not above sacrificing a few of its democratic ideals in favor of advancing its cynical geopolitical interests. The US only puts on the hat of a born-again fire-and-brimstone democracy preacher when it suits American geopolitical purposes.
Putin's mild authoritarianism cannot even be remotely compared to anything "totalitarian." That this blog tries constantly to make the comparison only shows the author has no clue as to even what real totalitarianism is.
Putin and Russia have no desire to conquer to world (which seems to be Washington's game these days). The Russian army is not engaged in a war on the opposite end of the planet, which was started under false pretenses ("WMD"). Russia is not trying to force its iron rule over foreign countries and their resources. Russia is not trying to impose its ideology or ideas on anyone else, as the ideological holly rollers in Washington do. Russia is content to live and let live and to respect the sovereignty of all nations (as Russia also insists on the respect for its own sovereignty). The people in Russia are free to say and do what they want and travel wherever they want, even abroad.
The main problem in Russia today is not President Putin's "totalitarianism,"--which exists only as a figment of one person's overactive imagination--but the the main problem is the economic one. There is an urgent need to upgrade Russia's economy and improve the standard of living of Russia's people. This is happening now, at long last, thanks in part to high world energy prices, sure, but thanks in no small part also to the skill and wisdom with which President Vladimir Putin has governed Russia over the past 8 years.
The average Russian is not the slightest bit concerned that the exiled oligarchs can't get their oil wells and TV stations back from the government (which were all stolen property to begin with--stolen from the people of Russia). The oligarchs only enriched themselves and laundered their ill-gotten wealth in foreign bank accounts, while the Russian people suffered through a humanitarian catastrophe. No one in Russia wants to create the political conditions which would allow for a return of the oligarchs to power. (To find such pro-oligarch views you have to look abroad, but certainly not in Russia.)
When concentrated wealth and power threaten the greater good of a society, then that society has the right to take action to break up that concentration. It's what happened in the US many decades ago with the enactment of the "trust busting" laws. Could Putin have done a better job in busting the power of the oligarchs? He probably could have put a better "legal" wrapper around the whole operation, and it might have looked nicer to certain foreign eyes. But the fact still remains that Putin was successful, and his oligarch-busting policy remains widely popular with the vast majority of Russia's citizens.
Yes, Russia has problems, to be sure. That's nothing new. But from where I sit it looks like Russia now also has a government that is focused like a laser beam on actually solving those problems. (and it's actually having a great deal of success as well).
TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/741
|