What I want to know is whether a Putin loyalist would be treated this way. Or is Vladimir Pekhtin a Putin loyalist?
Russian Parliament Ethics Chief Steps Aside Over Reports of Undisclosed Properties
The chairman of the ethics committee in Russia’s lower house of Parliament temporarily relinquished his authority on Wednesday after bloggers posted a raft of documents on the Internet showing him as the owner of expensive real estate, including a luxury oceanfront apartment in South Beach, part of Miami Beach, as well as valuable property in Russia that he did not list on required disclosure forms.___________________
The chairman, Vladimir A. Pekhtin, insisted in a televised statement that he had done nothing wrong, and that his voluntary surrender of authority over the ethics panel would last only for the duration of an investigation that he said would clear him.
Pekhtin
But the documents, some of them easily available public property records, showed Mr. Pekhtin’s name on the deeds of at least three properties in Florida, including the South Beach apartment bought last year for nearly $1.3 million…
Use this site to complete your Russian quiz, due Monday.
BBC Country Profile
And don't forget your reaction post to Putin and the Oligarchs. Access a copy on the Google Docs page.
12 comments:
Putin and the Oligarchs (aka the love hate relationship between powerful men)
I think part of the passage got cut in my packet but Putin and the Oligarchs article really was no surprise to me. I feel like ever since the idea was created, post Soviet Union, of privatizing everything and creating an extremely centralized power, Russia was destined to always sketchy and un-democratic form of government. It all really was worsened by Yeltsin and Putin isn't really doing anything to solve it. Instead, his solution is one where he is basically creating a more corrupt government. The article compared Russia to the US during the 1800s so if they have any chance of coming out of this with a legit democracy and stable economy, I guess we'll just have to wait 200 years.
Democracy takes time, democracy can also be extremely ugly. I don't ever think that Russia is going to be a free market capitalist state like the United States is, but it certainly could be a democratic state in the future. If we reflect on what the United States' democracy looked like a mere 150 years ago it resembles a developing democracy with extremely wealthy "oligarchs" (John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc.) jockeying for power, up until the strong hand of the central government came in and set everything straight.
In Russia, there are a lot of similarities to this, but there are also many key differences. The main difference being Russia is a communist state in transition, and its on the brink of returning back to that state. And in Russia the rule of law is not championed like it is here in the US. So thus the president, in this case Putin, obviously has much more power to do what he wants in his country.
Yes, right now its a mess. But just wait it out 25 years and I guarantee that democracy in Russia will be a little bit more 'clean'.
Yeah part of the passage in my packet got cut as well. In all honesty though, I think that the privatization done in Russia and the fact that the oligarchs hold a lot of the economic power just contributes the already corrupt government and society they live in. Putin would like to think that he's "solving" the problem, but i think he's just contributing to the corruptness of the everything. It's almost like, if you aren't Putin or any of the oligarchs in the country, you're getting screwed over and that really sucks for everyone else in the country. Personally, I think that Khodorkovsky was jailed because of his opposition to Putin and as long as the other oligarchs don't oppose Putin, the war against the oligarchs will go away and they can save themselves.
I follow the logic of Putin's actions. I should mention that I believe the actions were not the most fair in legality.
The problem I believe was the shock therapy mentioned in the article. It mentions this program the "people's capitalism" that would have prevented the oligarchs. Almost all of the people in Russia would have gotten equal shares (or at least a more equal number) preventing a massive rich/poor gap that was created. This would have probably reduced the problems associated was the rushed job in dealing with the privatization.
I completely agree with Nadia on this. When Putin tried to negotiate with the Oligarchs, he wanted the public to think that he was taking control of the corruption, but in reality, he was creating more of it by trying to secure his seat in the next election. In my opinion, I'm not surprised that Putin would go to such lengths to secure the election. If Khodorkovsky hadn't promoted legislation that benefited the Yukos, then he wouldn't have been arrested. This was Putin trying to keep him quiet.
For me, the Putin and the Oligarchs article definitely made clear the rich/poor gap in Russia, the political conflict between the newly rich and Putin, as well as the public's dislike of the privatization that has gone on. Contrary to what Yeltsin desired when privatizing Russia, most of the shares of state-controlled industries went to the bank owners that held the auctions for the state resources. I found this concept of the "undeserved" wealth of oligarchs like Khodorkovsky and others intersting especially since many like Khodorkovsky have used this new wealth to try to advance themselves even more politically and economically. This contrasts from the robber barons and economic leaders of the late 1800s in the US who used hard work to gain their fortune. Knowing this, it makes sense to me that the public is discontent with privatization. Overall, the way Putin responded to the oligarchs proves his concern with keeping power - he only started prosecuting them after their political power in the form of lobbying threatened his position as leader.
Putin and the Oligarchs:
I just thought that it was interesting that many of today's oligarchs are those that had (and obviously still do) close connections with the Yeltsin government and benefited from the political relationship, but now oligarchs like Khodorkovsky are seeking to criticize the government that allowed them to rise to power. It makes sense-- obviously the loss of money in Russia to foreign investors and private interests as well as the widening gap of rich and poor between the oligarchs and common people (and even the fact that very few of the oligarchs sought to improve on their assets) makes the government much more hostile to them now, but I just can't help but see it as a bite-the-hand-that-fed-you kind of situation.
I also don't think that Putin's actions of exile or imprisonment is helping anything. Not only does it make his over-stepping of power common practice and severely limit free speech within the country, but purely from an economic standpoint, banishing companies that are just starting to "play by the rules" isn't going to help the economy, even if it does satisfy a resentful citizenry in the short-run. The companies are just going to fall back into the hands of slightly more loyal oligarchs, which may keep some more of the money within the state, but that really won't do much to amending inequality within the nation either.
Like John said, democracy takes time, and Putin needs to just get off of his high horse ( http://goo.gl/MjEJc hah wow I'm lame) and rather try and work more with the companies to initiate reforms rather than just banish them whenever they threaten his office.
I agree with what Rohan said in regards to the comparison to the robber barons of the US past. This was a problem our nation faced once, and although the government didn't take such drastic measures, it's not an uncommon issue. There is corruption at every level of the Russian government, but maybe just letting events unfold sua sponte would serve the Russians best, instead of trying to restrict the power.
Putin and the Oligarchs
I can't help but worry over the amount of power that Putin is exercising in the economics of Russia. It weird to read about a foreign President having some much influence when dealing with people that have access to the type of billions that was mentioned in the article. If anything, I'd have to agree with Alyson, it is obvious that rather than intimidating businesses he should collaborate with the companies to practice 'cleaner' economics in their country.
Parker N.
Putin and the Oligarchs
I remember learning about russia in AP Euro and one point that mrs rose drilled into our heads was how difficult of a time russia has had with changing. They want freedom, get it, and then want to give it back. And even in today's russian society that seems further along than ever you can still see the subtle undertones of old russia in the struggle. While the oligarchs may exert an unreasonably force on the economy, Putin is clearly overstepping his bounds by imprisoning them or exiling them. It will be interesting to see russia move along the next couple of decades. It is at the tipping point that it has been at so many times in the past of becoming a true functioning democratic state.
Russia is definitely moving backwards.By limiting the resources, Russia isn't moving to a more liberal and democratic way. The government (Putin) clearly has far too much power, and its his overbearing rule that's keeping Russia and its people from progressing, because of his corrupt government. I mean, we discussed in class how another reason that Russia isn't progressing is because economically it isn't doing well, as wealth isn't equally distributed, and poverty is widespread, and this is primarily due to the Oligarchs and Putin's control and corruption. It seems that the only way for Russia to progress into a democracy is under a new leader, but that doesn't seem possible with Putin keeping such tight reins over Russia.
Putin & the Oligarchs:
I really think one of the most interesting things about this article was the author's attempted comparison of robber barons and how the early, private corporations were run. While its true America really struggled with this for a while, I think the difference is that these were new institutions to the USA, and they simply needed people to run them. Russia is dealing with old institutions and old corporations and trying to shit state money from "the people" who are supposed to collectively own it to a few select owners, the oligarchs. I think they will have a harder transition than we did because the way their executive and legislative branches are set up is not ideal for this type of change. And although Khodorovsky had some very shady dealings and made a lot of illegal mistakes, I kind of found it ironic and funny that once he figured he had enough money for himself, he'd go be charitable, follow the rules, and even privately pump money back into Russia's oil pipelines. I don't think that change was sparked by a change of heart, though, but rather intimidation and probably further threat from Putin.
Post a Comment