With Russia's parlimentary elections, being held on Sunday and what President Vladimir Putin plans for the March term presidential election unclear, CNN and Professor Richard Farkas from DePaul University report that one thing is clear -- Putin will not be going away.
Being broadcast this weekend, CNN's Christiane Amanpour's special "Czar Putin" reports: "Some say voicing your criticism could cost you your life there. Christiane Amanpour explores the dark side of Putin's Russia. "
Meanwhile, reports of Putin's only political opposition, former Chess champion Garry Kasparov, has been jailed and harrassed. He claims democracy is being held hostage in Putin's Russia.
"Garry Kasparov has defeated the world's greatest chess players and battled a supercomputer for supremacy. Now, he's facing his toughest opponent, but trying to check the power of Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't been easy. 
Intensely sharp, the energetic 44-year-old Kasparov, whose political opposition party has been the most vocal against Putin's Kremlin, can hardly suppress his fury with the country's leadership.
Jailed for five days before Sunday's parliamentary elections, the brooding grandmaster has spent long hours plotting his moves and countermoves.
"This regime is entering a very dangerous phase that is turning it into a dictatorship," he told journalists as he arrived at his Moscow apartment shortly after his release on Thursday."
The full story is linked here, with two good video reports. One is on the challenger's campaign and one on the fictional feature film propaganda that is once again sweeping Russia:
All this could be seen a year out from the Russia Presdential Election, as I reported in this post last March from a program held at the 2007 DuPage Social Studies Conference:
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.
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.
11 comments:
Look up "snafu" in the dictionary, and you will find a picture of Russia. The Putin is pretty much at the point where Hitler was in 1935 in terms of destroying democracy. Let's see: Opposition leaders go to jail, dissenting journalists die mysteriously, election observers get locked out, president looking for a way to stay in power. The Russian state is already an authoritarian one. I smell totalitarianism!
Seriously, the Russians have never gotten it right. They've tried absolute and constitutional monarchy, socialism, totalitarianism, parliamentary democracy, and they still can't get it right. I agree with Mr. Kasparov wholeheartedly (I've read his columns in The Wall Street Journal. They're really good). Mr. Putin is turning Russia into his little toy, so we should brace ourselves for Cold War II.
Fear the Putin!
I honestly have to disagree with Garrett about Cold War II, while Russia is possibly going to go through another change in governmental systems they don't seem to be imposing themselves on anybody which was the problem we had with them in the Cold War.
As for the article, I can't see how people would be upset if Putin changed the constitution so he could be president and not upset if he changed it so that the Prime Minister was more powerful and he could therefore become the prime minister. Either way he'd have more power so people should theoretically disagree with both.
This reminds me of an article I read back in September in the New York Times about Putin and succession plans. Russia's democratization seems to be instable and the United States feels like we have no insight or power in knowing what Russia is doing, unlike other countries we have more influence in (which is understandable considering the history the US and Russia has had). But the article I read suggested that Putin is in fact "turning Russia into his little toy". Putin can run for president again in four years and might just be looking for a "faceless replacement to warm the seat until his return."
I completly disagree with Garrett. Many people in the United States say that Russia "has never gotten it right", as Garrett said. But it depends on whose perspectives we look at. I watched the CNN special about Putin yesterday and I found it extremly biased and I found it very curious that CNN aired it right before the Russian elections. Most people happily agree with Putin and his party because they are reaping the benefits that he provided like increased salaries, higher standard of living, growing economy, and efficient and effective use of resources. They feel PROUD to be Russian. They make fun of the American way of life and society with its ineffective government and hardships of life under "the world's greatest democracy". In my opinion, the only reason why people like Garry Kasparov, the opposing candidate, disagree with Putin and want a true democarcy is because he will be famous and reap the benefits of the allience between the US and Russia, which he has clealy expressed. This is why people don't like Gary, because he is pro American.
I think a true democarcy or at least a change in the current attitude in the Russia government is only possible through a majority led "revolution", if you want to call it that. Keep in mind that the youth feverishly support Putin because they feel so proud of being Russian and because they get the most benefits. If this trend continues, their will not be a change in Russian government.
Also, I highly doubt another Cold War is going to occur. I heard this on the news but this is just pure crap. Russia couldn't even win in the Chechen War let alone take on the United States and its allies.
Going back to Gary Kasparov, I don't like him because he doesn't care for his people. I seriously think he is using his fame as a chessmaster to gain political leverage and let his voice be heard around the world so that the United States will support him.
I think that, domestically and regionally, Putin is a great leader because he has done so much for his people and his allies. But in respect to the West, he mearly scratches the surface. He knows how bad the conditions in Russia were after the Soviet Union dissovled and democarcy was installed along with the corruption that followed. He wants Russia to progress and he will do everything he can to see that it not become a puppet for America.
I feel what Putin is doing is completely wrong, regardless of the benefits the country reaps from it. With the legislative and executive parts of the government firmly in his control, his ability to simply change laws and give him infinite power makes any passed legislation worthless for the country. A jailed opposition and widespread propaganda everywhere, it looks like Russia's back to how it was a few decades ago, just with a friendly face and a mask of democracy. I guess what frustrates me the most is that despite countless re-vamps of their system, the people of Russia seem to cling to a stupid "peasant" mentality, sacrificing possibly freedoms to a strong leader, for the nation.
I highly doubt that Russia will return to a completly dictatorial rule as it once was. The only reason the people cling to Putin and his party is partly because of fear but it is mostly attributed to the benefits that they got. Why would they care for liberties like freedom of speech if their saleries have doubled and their economy is growing rapidly? They must have reasoned that if another leader came into power and he/she gave them their liberties and created a divided government, they would lose their new found benefits that Putin has provided through increased executive control. As a result, they view this control as a good thing.
Just some quotes from our favorite megalomaniacal head of state:
"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers? No one has a moral right to tell us to talk to childkillers. "
-Response to demand to negotiate with Beslan hostage takers
"Their [US] defense budget in absolute figures is almost 25 times bigger than Russia's. This is what in defense is referred to as "their home — their fortress". And good for them, I say. Well done!"
"You must obey the law, always, not only when they grab you by your special place."
"Russia doesn't negotiate with terrorists. It destroys them."
"If you are a Christian, you are in danger. Even if you are an atheist, you are in danger, and if you decide to convert to Islam, this will not save you, either, because traditional Islam is inimical to the conditions and objectives set by them [the terrorists]. If you are prepared to become a most radical Islamist and are prepared to circumcise yourself, I invite you to come to Moscow. I will recommend having the operation done in such a way that nothing will grow for you there anymore. "
-In response to a question by a reporter from Le Monde who asked him a question about Chechnya
And I love this one...
"There is no such thing as a former KGB man."
We shouldn't go around preparing for another Cold War just yet, but at the very least, it's a better idea not to mess with Russia until Putin isn't the one behind the trigger.
That said, I think that in order for Russia to recover from their serious post USSR slump, they need a man like Putin who is decisive enough to get them there. In the US, people have the luxury of voicing their dissent because of the relatively stable state in the country, but I think that Putin believes that dissenting comments should be saved for when Russia is back on its feet.
I completly agree with Feifan
I agree with Feifan and Sreeharsha. Putin is in no position for a Cold War II. As many people have pointed out, the Chechen War is a perfect example of this. That being said, America should not mess with Putin, because he is such a decisive leader. While I hate to say that limited freedom like Putin has is right, he is certainly turning Russia around. For the time being, this suspension of some freedoms may be best for the country. Democracy is great, but Russia is not quite ready for a full transformation.
I don't think that we are in a good position to access Putin's administration right now because, as the article mentioned, there is a lot that still needs to be determined. But it is clear that Russia is not, and probably will not, become an American style democracy. The problem is that the Russian people simply don't have the, let's call it, idealogical infrastructure to handle democracy. They have never had it before, and they don't necessarily understand how it is supposed to work. If they decide that they want their government to be more democratic, it is going to take a long time for that gradual adjustment to occur. But right now, I don't think they necessarily want a democracy. All most people really want is a government that is responsive to their needs, and Putin is providing that. So it's no surprise that the Russian people are pleased with him in power.
After the end of communism and the indesiciveness of Yelstin I think Putin is the right man to make sure this new Russia stays on its feet. Although the numerous human rights abuses can not be ignored I think that having a politically stable and 'friendly' russia would be alot better then having another revolution. Hopefully Russia will no longer need Putin and they can move towards a more democratic Russia soon.
Post a Comment