Two pigeons seen in front of a giant pre-election poster depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Prime Minister and presidential hopeful Dmitry Medvedev in St. Petersburg, Russia.After 24 hours of voting across 11 time-zones, Russians handed Dmitry Medvedev an overwhelming victory in the presidential election Sunday despite a lackluster campaign that was more coronation than contest from the moment last December when President Vladimir Putin endorsed him.
Medvedev won 70.1 percent of the vote, according to an exit poll, nearly matching Putin's tally in 2004 and infusing his victory with the kind of numbers he will claim as a genuine mandate. As expected, he crushed the anemic challenges of three opponents who never got to debate him and were drowned out by a deafening media drumbeat that Medvedev was "Putin's choice" and his victory would ensure the continuation of the popular president's policies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/02/ST2008030201044.html
More on the Russian lead up to Sunday's election: First, from my post following Dr. Richard Farkas' presentation at the DuPage Social Studies Conference last March and then from The 2 Regular Guys from CBS 2 School, who contrast the Russian election with our competitive democractic primary and the ultra competitive 14th District Congressional Race, which some of you may get involved on Special Election Day on March 8.
Putin not ready to leave Prime Time
In his update on Russia 2007, Dr. Richard Farkas said he is convinced Vladimir Putin will not seek to change the Russian constitution in DeJure (by law) fashion to stay President.
DeFact(o)s, however, indicate that the leader of “Putin’s Russia” is not ready to leave the Prime Time. In fact, don’t be surprised if the Prime Minister position becomes the most powerful position in the Government.
The Russian constitution adopted, but never ratified, in 1993 limits the directly elected president to two four-year terms, and Putin is term-limited. The Prime Minister, appointed by the President, currently is nothing more than a figurehead. “Prime Time” Putin is all but completely independent of any checks and balances from the State Duma. Here’s the rub: Having already managed the Duma elections to his favor, if the legislature changed the power structure from presidential to parliamentary, Russia would remain stable. And who would be the most viable PM candidate?
According to Farkas, “Out of the spotlight, people would not really have the lens on Putin and there would be no limit on how long he could serve as Prime Minster.”
Brilliant!
More tidbits on Putin’s Russia 2007 edition, from his annual “press conference” in front of 1,200 “fair and balanced” journalists. Internet hacks were banned from attending:
Ø “Feelings of national pride and values have been restored in the Russian people and must be supported (ie: less tolerance, more nationalism)
Ø On being a year away from the March, 2008 presidential election with no candidates having emerged yet, “All potential candidates have jobs and are busy,’’ (Not like the U.S. Senate) Putin said, adding he would not hand-pick a successor.
Ø “The next election will not be acrimonious.” (No DNC or RNC talking points)
The December Duma elections and whatever presidential race shapes up should be very congenial. After all, only 4 of the former 44 political parties have >5% support to run a candidate. Two of those “opposition” parties have been managed by Putin to provide center/right and center/left opposition. All that’s left is Putin’s United Russia, and the old Communist Party.
Then there is Rule of Law Russian style, 2007 (modern democratic centralism?). Here are a couple of new laws passed by the legislature, signed and supported, of course, by the president. At least they can pass meaningful campaign finance reform in Russia:
Ø Civil servants have been banned from getting grants (or fund-raising) from foreign sources. They were already banned from getting donations from domestic sources – those would be bribes.
Ø Banned are public marches two weeks before or after the elections. This law is subject to federal authority enforcement.
Still, despite all of the above, Dr. Farkas does not diagnose a seemingly crashing democracy in Russia caused by pilot error.
“Clearly he has been the most competent Russian leader. Markedly better, and more sober, than Yeltsin. The problems are so monumental that even the best and brightest would have problems,’’ he said.
___________________
Putin ProjectionsWith 0% of the vote reported (Friday), the 2 Regular Guys are projecting Putin as the winner.
Russian are not slated to go to the election polls until Sunday, March 2nd, but even the most novice pundit can predict this outcome.
Facing nominal opposition and securing the endorsement of President Vladamir Putin, Dmitri Medvedev is a sure winner in Russia's fourth presidential election since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
But the real winner will be Vladamir Putin, Russia's outgoing president.
For years, the Russian people have given Putin overwhelming support with more than 70% of Russians approving of his leadership. He would surely get elected to a third term, but Putin is abiding by the Russian Constitution that states no person can serve as president for more than two consecutive terms.
Putin named his successor when he announced that Medvedev was his preferred candidate. This essentially made Medvedev the next Russian president as he will not face any serious opponents and since the government controls the broadcast media which heavily favors President Putin. Some experts predict that with these advantages, Medvedev could win with more than 80% of the vote.
This election in Russia shows us that democracy should be considered as more than just voting.
A full democracy holds competitive elections where the ruling power has a chance to be voted out of office.Our primary elections have modeled this type of healthy democracy where the tough nomination battles have lingered far longer than normal as a testament to a field of strong candidates.
Locally, the fight to win the special election in the 14th Congressional District also shows this type of healthy electoral competition. The Democrat Bill Foster and the Republican Jim Oberweis have waged a high-profile campaign showing that the district vacated by former Speaker Dennis Hastert is no longer dominated by just one party.
Perhaps we will someday see this type of vibrant electoral competition in Russia, but their only election night suspense will be whether Putin's candidate wins 81% or 82% of the vote.
VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Russian Elections
8 comments:
Of note to review from the race in the 14th.
Safe District: CQ politics defines a safe district as one where the nominee is/will be a strong favorite, and an upset is virtually impossible.
For review, party gerrymandering of districts has created many safe congressional districts that had Congressional incumbents re-elected close to 90% of the time.
Since 1988, the first time Dennis Hassert was elected to Congress from the 14th, it has been a safe Republican District. While the former Speaker of the House never ran unopposed (as some reps. do from safe districts), he won 10 straight elections with 60% of the vote or more.
Even if Jim Oberweiss wins Saturday's special election over Bill Foster, and keeps the seat in GOP hands, it is clear that the 14th has gone from a safe Repulbican district to a toss-up.
Sure, Russia is more stable, but the system is perfect for a totalitarian takeover, which is exactly what The Putin is up to. The Putin is doing exactly what Hitler and Uncle Joe did back in the 30s. Elections are rigged, dissent is crushed, grants from outside are being blocked. It's classic dictatorship. Fear the Putin.
I don't think Putin intends to become a totalitarian dictator. If that were the case, it would have been much easier for him to simply amend the Russian constitution and eliminate presidential terms limits; he probably would have been able to accomplish that without much trouble. I think that the people genuinely like Putin and what he has done, and they feel more secure with him keeping a hand in the government. But I'm not so sure the Mednevev (i'm not sure how to spell his name) will be as easily manipulated as people think. Sometimes in this situation, the presumptive "puppets" come to realize the amount of power they could have, and they start using it for themselves.
I agree with Jeremy. This is basically what I have been saying in class. Putin will stay in power until Russia is stabilized with a sound economy and government. I watched a CNN special called Tzar Putin and it showed that people, from the young to the old, liked Putin because he revitalized Russia and brought back pride that they have longed for. As for Medvedev, he will be a puppet. I disagree with Jeremy on this point. I don't think that Medvedev will take power for himself. He knows that Putin controls the political machine in Russia and its too risky to go against him. He has seen what Putin can do to dissenters (i.e polonium).
I think an argument can be made about how Putin is in some ways similar to FDR in that both wanted to stay in power until stability was reached. FDR could have quit after the second or thrid term but he went on to his foruth. I think this says a lot about Putin and his actions because even though he is staying in power, it doesn't necessarly mean that he is totalitarian dictator. I know that FDR didn't censor the media and arrest the opposition but the idea of staying in power is similar in both of these pragmatic leaders. Putin wants continuity and stability and he will do whatever it takes to achieve it. Besides, even if their were free and fair elections in Russia, I think that I can confidently say that United Russia and Putin would have won regardless because of the reforms that he has brought that greatly enhanced the Russian way of life in regard to higher salaries, consumerism, and a free market.
I'd just like to clarify and say that I'm not necessarily predicting the Mednevev will act independently as president. I just wanted to point out that there is still a distinct possibility that may occur.
While I don't agree with the means in which he is achieving the goals, Russia has undertaken reform during Putin's term. I can see the FDR analogy, but the key difference between FDR and Putin, is that FDR never supressed freedoms to the point that Putin did. That bieng said, Putin, I think has legitimate, good intentions for Russia. I think that in bieng prime minister, Putin can see that his reforms work. And I agree with Sree, in that eventually, with more stability, more freedoms will come to Russia, just as was done during the late nineteenth century in the US.
I agree with Jeremy. I think that if Putin really wanted to stay in power, he would have made the necessary amendments and not thought twice about it. However, I still think that he wants to "keep his thumb on the pulse" as PM and thus, Medvedev will have to show that he can lead Russia without being overly influenced by Putin.
I agree with many of you. Although it is a flaw that Putin doesn't allow freedom of opposition, he is respecting the constitutionality on limit on the executive power. A powerful and popular Russian leader like Putin (under unique Russian system of highly centralized power) trying to abide by the constitution seems to convey positive outlook for Russia. It is true that Russian people strongly support and trust Putin and his Russia, and it is true that under Putin, Russia has regained great stability and confidence in its future. I think ,and I hope, that Putin really does have a genuine interest in revitalizing Russia in non-totalitarian direction.
Post a Comment