View Full Version : Is democracy finished in Russia?


241Commuter
09-19-2004, 11:56 AM
While we argue over which candidate screwed up the biggest 30 years ago, possibly the biggest story of the decade (could be bigger than 9/11) barely gets noticed. Vladi Putin has virtually crowned himself the new Czar of Russia. Considering the Russians still have formible nuclear arsenal, this is some scary shit. I think this requires a greater response than Powell saying, "naughty, naughty, naughty...". Course, Putin would argue it's just the Patriot Act Russian style.


Democracy finished in Russia (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-putin19sep19,1,1418022.story?coll=la-home-world)


MOSCOW — In a sunny garden outside the Kremlin, not far from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, workers quietly hammered into place 10 squat black letters to commemorate one of the bloodiest battles of World War II: Stalingrad.

Until Friday, the memorial bore the name the city has had since 1961 — Volgograd — reflecting modern Russia's reluctance to honor a Soviet dictator famed and feared for a legacy of repression. President Vladimir V. Putin had long resisted pleas by war veterans to correct the historical record, saying it "could trigger suspicion that we are returning to the times of Stalinism."

Then, without fanfare, the 10 new letters appeared on the wall, and below them, a bright wreath of autumn flowers. Coming just days after Putin announced one of the most sweeping consolidations of presidential power since the fall of communism, the move evoked far more than the memory of war.

"It is symbolic — another step toward the restoration of the Soviet Union," said Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a former Soviet dissident and chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group, a human rights organization.

As a chilly early autumn takes hold in Russia, there is a palpable sense of unease.

On the streets, people live in dread of the next terrorist attack, and in law enforcement circles, authorities flinch from the demonstrated inability of Russia's famed security services to protect the population. In the last few weeks, more than 400 people have been killed in bloodshed that has included a suicide bombing near a subway station, nearly simultaneous airline bombings and a hostage siege at a provincial school.

Opponents worry that Putin's response has had almost nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with expanding the already formidable power of the government.

Putin responded to the school tragedy by saying that the nation was "weak — and the weak get beaten," and by taking steps "to ensure the unity of state power." On Sept. 13, he announced a plan to eliminate the general election of regional governors and of independent seats in parliament, essentially removing the last real checks on his personal dominion over the largest nation on Earth.

As a result of these measures and others put into place over the last four years, the Kremlin now controls an absolute majority in parliament, all major television stations, the Russian gas giant Gazprom (which reportedly is positioning itself to acquire the private oil company Yukos), the country's corrupt judicial system and a massive state security apparatus.

"Putin is now past the point where his regime can be removed peacefully by democratic means. There is no way for democratic transition," said Vladimir Kara-Murza of the pro-democracy Committee 2008 organization. "There's no independent media, there's no parliament to speak of, there are no real parliamentary elections and now with the decision about the regional governors, there are no elections at all."

In an office at the parliament building Friday, one official broke from Russian into English and lowered his voice to barely a whisper, nodding his head toward the wall, as if it might be listening.

"Democracy is finished in this country," he said. "It is over. It ended on the 13th of September."

Asked whether his caution and pessimism were not extreme, he shook his head firmly. "Many have already been given very severe and hard instructions," he said. "Not to comment. Not to criticize. And real threats. All of us are in a state of shock. We are in the middle of 1937."

Notes of concern have been raised by Putin's onetime mentor, the reclusive Boris N. Yeltsin, and by former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, both cautioning about the need to preserve democratic freedoms.

"The general impression is that everything will now rest on the president's shoulders. First of all, this is too great a burden for even the most superhuman politician," Gorbachev told the newspaper Novaya Gazeta. "It is vital for the people themselves to participate in, oversee and receive information about the activities of the authorities. If their intention is to solve everything without the involvement of the people — that is a delusion."

Analysts said the move to appoint regional governors, with ratification by local legislatures, reflects concern over the growing militancy of some of Russia's far-flung regions. Oil-rich areas have grumbled loudly in the last year over Kremlin moves to substantially increase Moscow's share of oil profits; in July, 10 governors in the Russian Far East signed an unprecedented letter of opposition to Putin's plan to replace relatively generous Soviet-era in-kind benefits with meager cash payments.

In the wake of the president's Sept. 13 announcement, the Russian information agency, RIA Novosti, convened a panel of political analysts to help make Putin's case. They depicted Russia as a nation at war with terrorists, most linked to the southern republic of Chechnya, where Russia has battled with separatist rebels for most of the last 10 years.

"The main goal of the terrorists is to rock the state structure and to destabilize. So the retaliation must be to prevent them from doing this by … strengthening the backbone and vertebrae of power," said Sergei Markov, a prominent political analyst with close ties to the Kremlin.

That the Russian leader has no intention of softening his often-quoted determination to "wipe out" separatist Chechen rebels "in the outhouse" was reaffirmed Friday.

"We must under no circumstances give in to the idea that by making concessions to criminals, we can gain anything, or hope that they will leave us in peace — this will not happen," Putin declared.

Not long after his remarks, a regional amnesty commission recommended a pardon for a Russian officer, Col. Yuri Budanov, convicted in 2003 of kidnapping and murdering a Chechen woman — a case widely seen as a referendum on Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya. Budanov, whose case must now be reviewed by Putin, had been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

"It is all the more symbolic that Budanov is pardoned now, immediately after Beslan," said Anna Politkovskaya, who covers Chechnya for Novaya Gazeta. "It is like telling those who may be concerned, 'Watch out, guys like Budanov are out, and they're rolling their sleeves up.' "

Putin has announced plans for stepped-up anti-terrorism efforts in the North Caucasus, but there has been almost universal agreement that law enforcement will remain an ineffective opponent as long as corruption remains endemic.

Suicide bombers who boarded the two airliners that exploded Aug. 24, killing all 90 aboard, were detained by airport police but allowed to board the planes after paying bribes — one of as little as $34 — to an airline employee, prosecutors said Thursday.

"The reason we are seeing this kind of terrorism on such a large scale is very simple: We created conditions for the security services and the law enforcement bodies in which they simply cannot be effective in performing their functions," said lawmaker Gennady Gudkov, a former officer of the FSB, the main successor agency to the KGB.

A widespread exodus of experienced officers during the 1990s, when salaries and prestige in the law enforcement structures plunged, left Russian law enforcement with inexperienced officers and few or no intelligence networks, Gudkov said.

"After the professionals quit the system, the people who came to replace them had an intellect and world outlook that did not allow them to perform these duties. These people were coming into the service with one idea — that they could be making money [by taking bribes]," he said. "Please answer this question: Can a system like this effectively counter terrorism, when a terrorist can travel quite freely on Russian roads simply by bribing a traffic policeman?"

A senior Interior Ministry officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the terrorist attacks have left the upper ranks of Russian law enforcement "literally paralyzed and in panic."

Backing Gudkov's assertions, the officer said his agency was left with no network of informants or on-the-ground intelligence assets when experienced officers left during the 1990s, and the shortfall still has not been resolved, leaving the police now "in an information vacuum."

"There is no intelligence information at all, and even if there was, the people at the service would not know how to go about analyzing it," he said. "So what you can expect from the 'stepped-up security' promised by Putin will be essentially more mopping-up raids at markets, dormitories and the places where we always check…. And all these security measures will not have any real effect."

Putin himself has managed over the years to avoid blame for even the government's most unpopular policies — but that may not be the case for much longer. A poll by the Public Opinion Foundation in August found that the president's support for the first time slipped below the 50% mark, and that he would attract only 49% of the vote if new elections were held now.

Chess champion Garry Kasparov, now heading Committee 2008, told Echo of Moscow radio that the public has become disillusioned with the idea that a strong state can cure all the nation's ills. "It's power that has dragged us into this horror, and power that dragged us into this war, and all along this power had nothing but promises, preening with its own force….

"But this power is bankrupted now. And it's not just bankruptcy — we can say that this power has become a threat to everyone in this country…. And in order to move forward, we must at least begin to diagnose our own illness."

mysql101
09-19-2004, 01:21 PM
While we argue over which candidate screwed up the biggest 30 years ago, possibly the biggest story of the decade (could be bigger than 9/11) barely gets noticed. Vladi Putin has virtually crowned himself the new Czar of Russia. Obviously this is an undesirable change. But it really tells you something about our news media when there is a new alert to tell you that Brittany Spears has just gotten married. Like I give a shit.

aussie77
09-19-2004, 03:59 PM
Not to start a huge political discussion here, but doesn't it bother any of you republicans that Bush said just a few days ago that he admires Putin?

Synistyr
09-19-2004, 04:32 PM
Not to start a huge political discussion here, but doesn't it bother any of you republicans that Bush said just a few days ago that he admires Putin?

No. The absence of democracy is never a real issue. It's what happens inside of a country's government that proves to be the real issue. When was the last time England voted for a King or Queen? It doesnt happen, however the United States doesnt need to stomp them into the ground because they arent abusing their tyranical power. I'm sure if the streets of England were running red with the blood of its people due to the Queen sending "death squads" to peoples' homes that dont support her, the US would get involved.

It amazes me how many threads start out with people saying "I dont want this to turn into a political debate", but then they twist and turn the facts around to make it argumentative. Russia has alot of internal problems and I wish them all the best. Putin may very well be making a poor decision, but it may turn into a rather wise decision, only time will tell.

aussie77
09-19-2004, 06:15 PM
No offense Synistyr, but you have no clue what you're talking about. The Royal family in England have precisely zero real power anymore. England is a fully-fledged democracy and has been for quite some time. So if you can find something relevant to add, you're welcome to post it.

I, Claudius
09-19-2004, 06:21 PM
I'm more concerned with the question of whether democracy is finished in the USA.

Speed-ER doc
09-19-2004, 06:24 PM
I'm more concerned with the question of whether democracy is finished in the USA.
Not democracy, just Democrats.

I, Claudius
09-19-2004, 06:29 PM
We'll see. (cue maniacal laughter)

PetersonPeleRx8
09-19-2004, 06:36 PM
No offense Synistyr, but you have no clue what you're talking about. The Royal family in England have precisely zero real power anymore. England is a fully-fledged democracy and has been for quite some time. So if you can find something relevant to add, you're welcome to post it.

Classic.

Synistyr
09-19-2004, 06:56 PM
No offense Synistyr, but you have no clue what you're talking about. The Royal family in England have precisely zero real power anymore. England is a fully-fledged democracy and has been for quite some time. So if you can find something relevant to add, you're welcome to post it.

No offense taken since it is you that doesnt exactly understand how the "democracy" there works.

The British monarch or Sovereign is the head of state of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, and is the source of all executive, judicial and (as the Queen-in-Parliament) legislative power. The monarch is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England as well as Head of the Commonwealth and head of state of 15 other Commonwealth Realms. Yes, the monarchs role is mostly ceremonial, however there are two situations in which the monarch may have political power. By convention, the monarch dissolves parliament and issues a writ for new elections at the request of the Prime Minister, however it is an open question as to whether the monarch must always grant such a dissolution. Another possible situation is if no party gains a majority in Parliament. The monarch would by convention offer the post of Prime Minister to the head of the party most likely to form a government, but it is possible that this may not be the party with the most seats.

In layman's terms, the British "monarchy" is only "democratic" while the monarchy allows it. If you dont like that situation though, how about King Fahd? I guess he is powerless also in your eyes?

Synistyr
09-19-2004, 06:56 PM
Classic.

Just as naive as your buddy.

241Commuter
09-19-2004, 07:57 PM
Just as naive as your buddy.

So, not exactly zero power, but a close approximation to zero power. Thanks for the lesson but you didn't really make a point.

As near as I can tell, the main function of the British Royalty is to keep the British tabloids thriving. Nobody outside of British tabloid readers and Europe blue bloods can take Prince Charles seriously, can they? There is simply no opportunity for the royals to abuse their power, so they satisfy themselves by abusing their station.

Far cry from what can happen in Russia. As weird as it seemed to us, the Soviets actually had a mechanism for decision making and power transition. Czar Putin appears to be consolidating supreme power with no democratic or Soviet style process. Maybe Putin will turn out to be an enlightened dictator, but what of his successor? After 12 years of democratic experiments and radical Muslim based terror, Russia is ripe for a serious fascist-like spasm of nationalism. If Putin slips, there are some serious right-wingers waiting to take over.

Synistyr
09-19-2004, 08:28 PM
So, not exactly zero power, but a close approximation to zero power. Thanks for the lesson but you didn't really make a point.

As near as I can tell, the main function of the British Royalty is to keep the British tabloids thriving. Nobody outside of British tabloid readers and Europe blue bloods can take Prince Charles seriously, can they? There is simply no opportunity for the royals to abuse their power, so they satisfy themselves by abusing their station.

Far cry from what can happen in Russia. As weird as it seemed to us, the Soviets actually had a mechanism for decision making and power transition. Czar Putin appears to be consolidating supreme power with no democratic or Soviet style process. Maybe Putin will turn out to be an enlightened dictator, but what of his successor? After 12 years of democratic experiments and radical Muslim based terror, Russia is ripe for a serious fascist-like spasm of nationalism. If Putin slips, there are some serious right-wingers waiting to take over.


(sings) " killing me softly with his song...." You guys are killing me! Didnt make a point?! The monarchy is INTACT. Democracy lasts there only as long as the monarchy allows it to... they can end it at any time they please. The monarchy was never ousted for the very reason that I gave in my earlier post; they werent murdering their own people or slaughtering helpless surrounding countries.

The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II (since February 6 1952) and the Heir Apparent is Charles, Prince of Wales (son of the Queen). Although Charles is the formal heir-apparent, there has been continuing speculation that when the Queen dies or abdicates then the crown will pass not to Charles, but to his eldest son. Advocates for this suggest that Charles is unsuitable as a monarch because of his divorce from Diana, Princess of Wales. So dont worry about Prince Charles meeting your "standards" for royalty.

The original instigator seems to be making a big deal over Putin due to the country being Russia. The Cold War has long since been over, no need to get your panties in a bunch. The concept that President Bush trusts Putin should not worry or even concern anyone. The "democratic" country of Russia has been selling tanks and other weapons to any country willing to give them money for years (how else do you figure all those Russian built T-72's made it to the Middle East?) I'm sure you Democrats dont want to hear anything about Clinton being president when that was going on.

aussie77
09-19-2004, 09:03 PM
Synistyr, you should have quit while you were only slightly behind.

The monarchy as such in England does not have the power to end democracy in said country at their whim. In fact, the truth of the matter is that the monarchy only continues to exist at the whim of the people. You make it sound as though at any moment Queen Elizabeth could just take over the reins of power in England, and unless you are a complete and utter moron you must know this is not the case. In BOTH instances you mentioned the monarchy being anything more than a figurehead, it was with the monarchy acting as an adjunct to the political process in England, and most certainly not as the central controlling entity.

You give further demonstration of your ignorance with the following statement:

how else do you figure all those Russian built T-72's made it to the Middle East?

The T-72 began production in 1971, some 20 years before the collapse of the soviet union and the onset of Russian democracy. Most of the arms sold by former soviet-bloc nations to countries in the middle east and other locations occured quite some time ago. This is evidenced largely by the fact those few T-72's that the U.S has actually faced in battle, namely in Kuwait in the first Gulf War, and then in Iraq in last year's invasion, the T-72's in question have been some 30 years old, having been acquired by said nations long before Russia became a democratic nation.

Therefore perhaps there is some legitemate concern about the fact that Bush admires a man who has just turned Russia into something quickly approaching a dictatorship. Perhaps regardless of anyone's political affiliation (or in my case lack thereof since I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative and hence consider myself neither democrat nor republican), there are some people who can stop watching Fox News long enough to see cause for concern in places that are neither within the United States nor currently experiencing occupation by U.S military forces. In doing so, we learn all kinds of interesting things, not least of which is the fact that the United Kingdom is in fact run by democracy.

Here is a nice excerpt from an encyclopaedia for you:

In form, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with legislative power invested in an elected government, and executive power invested in a Cabinet led by the Prime Minister whose power, though carried out in the monarch's name, is answerable to Parliament and through it the electorate.

Now again did you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion?

Synistyr
09-19-2004, 09:38 PM
You trully are a child arent you? First with your name calling and then adding your own "ignorant" comments to boot.

-there are two situations in which the monarch may have political power. By convention, the monarch dissolves parliament and issues a writ for new elections at the request of the Prime Minister, however it is an open question as to whether the monarch must always grant such a dissolution. Another possible situation is if no party gains a majority in Parliament. The monarch would by convention offer the post of Prime Minister to the head of the party most likely to form a government, but it is possible that this may not be the party with the most seats.-

I'm not making this up... this is mearly the facts. Yes, the monarch CAN dissolve parliament. Other than you being a complete "moron" (as you say), I'm not sure why you cant understand it. You also seem to be dodging an earlier point that I made. I said if you didnt like that scenario, then what about King Fahd? I suppose King Fahd is merely a figurehead in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Your name calling and attempts to talk down to me only make yourself sound more ignorant. Face the facts. Bottom line, and to get back to the topic at hand. No, there is no need to worry about Putin.

Now, do you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion besides childish name-calling?

aussie77
09-20-2004, 12:12 PM
The last I checked, describing someone as 'ignorant' was not actually name-calling. But since you have proceeded to call me both a child and a moron, then congratulations for taking the discussion a step lower.

That said, you apparantly are not capable of understanding the point you yourself are making.

You keep quoting this passage, in which I will bold the relevant parts:

-there are two situations in which the monarch may have political power. By convention, the monarch dissolves parliament and issues a writ for new elections at the request of the Prime Minister, however it is an open question as to whether the monarch must always grant such a dissolution. Another possible situation is if no party gains a majority in Parliament. The monarch would by convention offer the post of Prime Minister to the head of the party most likely to form a government, but it is possible that this may not be the party with the most seats.-

You keep talking as though the monarchy in England has the ability to, of their own accord, dissolve parliament and end democracy in Brittain in a heartbeat. This is clearly not the case. The monarchy in England does not have the ability to end elections in said country. Now, given that Putin removed checks and balances designed to limit the power of his position, I would say the two situations are not even CLOSE to be comparable.

So since you've contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion except to inform us that "there is no need to worry about Putin", an opinion which apparantly is based upon a gross lack of knowledge of the circumstances we are discussing, it would appear that further discussion with you is useless. And, I managed to do all this without calling you a child nor a moron, however fitting such labels might be in this case.

brothervoodoo
09-20-2004, 12:24 PM
Not to start a huge political discussion here.... Now this is classic... :rolleyes:

rev-2-9k
09-20-2004, 12:26 PM
I am paraphrasing but this is from Putin.

"In America democracy is for the rich, in Russia it is for who shouts the loudest."

Anyone ever voted in Russia? Every candidate has a Yes or No next to their name. Last person I talked to voted no for everyone.

Russia and America have many common problems. America and Russia having strong political ties makes sense in so many ways.

I have always thought that what would make Putin a great leader is when he decides to step down.

eskimo
09-20-2004, 12:58 PM
I find it interesting how Bush came up with the "war on terror" and Putin appropriated it for his fight against the Chechnyans, and the Spanish government appropriated it in their fight against the Basques (before they got voted out). In the same way, Bush steered it into Iraq, and used it to pass the Patriot act. So now, instead of finding the real culprits, everyone is using this marvellous tool to fight their own personal battles.