The state of Russian "democracy"

I don't know why anyone in the West honestly though that out of the Soviet Union a fully functioning Western style Liberal Democracy was going to pop up. Wasn't going to happen.

Nobody though that about Czechoslovakia, Poland or Hungary. And here we are.

It's interesting to read Western pre-1989 literature concerning the Eastern Bloc and the prospects of democratization. Mostly the authors reject this possibility outright (the "best" ones argue that Slavs and other "Eastern" nations are inherently unable to live in a democracy :lol: ) or the believe in a slow transition to some milder forms of socialism. Very few people in the West actually believed that Eastern Bloc would collapse in few years, that Germany will be reunited and that countries like Poland could become members of the European Community (now called EU).

The West did one mistake though: it believed that blind application of methods which worked in the US or Western Europe could reform Russia from a communist totalitarian state to a free market democratic one in a very short time. The truth is nobody in the West had any idea how to reform countries which lived under communism for 40 (70 in Russia's case) years. Each country had to find its own way. It was a slow, painful and disilluzioning process.

Russians just gave up because it was hard and the Western paradise they expected didn't arrive as soon as they thought. Now they reap the "benefits" of their decision.

Now if Putin would stop his saber rattling, and his "we are strong" routine nobody would care what he got up to. Russia's likely to drift towards having a strong President and Executive it already has. But if Putin wanted to be a full dictator he could dissolve the Duma and the Constitution tomorrow, and people probably wouldn't say all that much at all. Heck now would be a good time to do exactly that, "temporary economic measures to strengthen the country" whose going to object? Won't happen though. Sure they won't get rid of his hand on government, for awhile at least... but that can change look at Suharto.

Why would he do that? Even the commies maintained a facade of democracy. Putin is clever, he will not make such a mistake to give his critics anything so obvious.

It's vague, is probably going to be misused, but he hasn't exactly graduated into full dictator, I would just call him a shadow director, or a controlling mind to borrow commercial law parlance.

Isn't that equally bad? Who cares how obvious the authorian aspects are, if the results are similar?
 
The West did one mistake though: it believed that blind application of methods which worked in the US or Western Europe could reform Russia from a communist totalitarian state to a free market democratic one in a very short time. The truth is nobody in the West had any idea how to reform countries which lived under communism for 40 (70 in Russia's case) years. Each country had to find its own way. It was a slow, painful and disilluzioning process.

Russians just gave up because it was hard and the Western paradise they expected didn't arrive as soon as they thought. Now they reap the "benefits" of their decision.

I'm not in the habit of defending Putin.

Your right it is hard, but Russia fell hard, and it fell back only a small measure. It'll right itself after a decade or two with a strong presidential position, and a strong executive.

Russians just gave up because it was hard and the Western paradise they expected didn't arrive as soon as they thought. Now they reap the "benefits" of their decision.

Russia didn't give up, it settled on a halfway solution, that aside from political freedom has worked rather well, better living standards: check, better economy: check, better political freedom well kind of: check.

Isn't that equally bad? Who cares how obvious the authorian aspects are, if the results are similar?

How long before the next generation forces him out? I didn't use the example of Suharto without any justification... his regime was "never going to fall" and was going to stay forever. He did horrible things, and did alot of good as well... but even with his hands firmly on the reigns he toppled. He also did a heck of alot more than Putin has done so far.

I take the long view on such things, Russia is drifting towards Authoritarianism, does it bother me really? No. Could NATO defeat Russia. Yes. Is Russia run by a rabid madman? No. It's run a by a cunning political operator who wants to bring back the Super in Superpower to Russia. Does that involve running over Eastern Europe with tanks? No.

What's to worry about?

Sure Snorrius is a nationalist, and sure the government is going to become corrupt, and increasingly nasty. But there is not much else you can do but wait for its eventual downfall.
 
I'm not in the habit of defending Putin.

Your right it is hard, but Russia fell hard, and it fell back only a small measure. It'll right itself after a decade or two with a strong presidential position, and a strong executive.

That's a hell of an assumption.

Russia didn't give up, it settled on a halfway solution, that aside from political freedom has worked rather well, better living standards: check, better economy: check, better political freedom well kind of: check.

You seem to be missing the point: since Putin's rise to power, the situation has only been actually worsening. Russia is now more unfree that it was at the end of Yeltsin era. Russia is returning back to authoritarianism.

Better economy: che- what?! You mean "rising prices of oil -> more money for Russia" equation? Because without oil money, Russian budget is back in deep deficit.

There was certainly a rise in economic activity in Russia, that was expected and it's a result of the development in the 1990s. But the Russian economy is fragile and essentially dependant on exporting oil and natural gas.

How long before the next generation forces him out? I didn't use the example of Suharto without any justification... his regime was "never going to fall" and was going to stay forever. He did horrible things, and did alot of good as well... but even with his hands firmly on the reigns he toppled. He also did a heck of alot more than Putin has done so far.

Uhm, take a good look at the Russians here on CFC - how many of those young, educated and middle class people actually mind that Russia is authoritarian? They either applaud it or they don't care. If they're the future of Russia, than the future is pretty bleak (no offence here, but they really seem to represent most of young Russians - they just don't give a damn about democracy and stuff like that).

I take the long view on such things, Russia is drifting towards Authoritarianism, does it bother me really? No. Could NATO defeat Russia. Yes. Is Russia run by a rabid madman? No. It's run a by a cunning political operator who wants to bring back the Super in Superpower to Russia. Does that involve running over Eastern Europe with tanks? No.

What's to worry about?

People were asking that too when a certain man with a funny moustache took power in Germany.

Seriously, authoritarianism is never good, especially in a relatively big and powerful country with plenty of oil and other resources. Putin is a pragmatic, or he appears to be for now. He will certainly not start a war against NATO or something like that, but he might be tempted to export Russian model into neigbouring countries, thus bringing the wonders of Russian "sovereign democracy" to another millions of people, as if it wasn't bad enough that 140 million Russians live in this system already.

Plus, he will undermine all Western efforts to maintain some sort of "democratic pressure" on another authoritarian countries.

Sure Snorrius is a nationalist, and sure the government is going to become corrupt, and increasingly nasty. But there is not much else you can do but wait for its eventual downfall.

That's correct, so I am left with criticizing it every chance I get :sad:
 
Which is fine Winner, sometimes I'm not that bust in work and really need to argue with someone who wont give in no matter what. Between you and MB I'm covered
 
That's a hell of an assumption.

That's what will happen. In the constitutional ruins when his lot fall, will be a strong Presidential Republic, with a strong executive keyed to obeying the President.

You seem to be missing the point: since Putin's rise to power, the situation has only been actually worsening. Russia is now more unfree that it was at the end of Yeltsin era. Russia is returning back to authoritarianism.

Better economy: che- what?! You mean "rising prices of oil -> more money for Russia" equation? Because without oil money, Russian budget is back in deep deficit.

There was certainly a rise in economic activity in Russia, that was expected and it's a result of the development in the 1990s. But the Russian economy is fragile and essentially dependant on exporting oil and natural gas.

It's not as bad as the Soviet Union, sure he's an authoritarian probable dictator, but in terms of that he's fairly benign. The economy is not solely centered on oil, but yes that is a rather bad problem the Russians need to get over. Most of the industrialized and non industrialized world is currently in deficit, it's like any major contraction, forward estimates fall. Most of Eastern Europe is fairly fragile...

Uhm, take a good look at the Russians here on CFC - how many of those young, educated and middle class people actually mind that Russia is authoritarian? They either applaud it or they don't care. If they're the future of Russia, than the future is pretty bleak (no offence here, but they really seem to represent most of young Russians - they just don't give a damn about democracy and stuff like that).

I wouldn't expect them to give a damn about democracy either, Russia hasn't had a particularity good run with democracy, nor does it have traditional democratic instiutions to fall back on, the best you could expect was/is a psuedo-democracy before it either transitions to a full on dictatorship and when that star falls towards a proper democracy [you might skip the dictatorial stage].

People were asking that too when a certain man with a funny moustache took power in Germany.

Seriously, authoritarianism is never good, especially in a relatively big and powerful country with plenty of oil and other resources. Putin is a pragmatic, or he appears to be for now. He will certainly not start a war against NATO or something like that, but he might be tempted to export Russian model into neigbouring countries, thus bringing the wonders of Russian "sovereign democracy" to another millions of people, as if it wasn't bad enough that 140 million Russians live in this system already.

Plus, he will undermine all Western efforts to maintain some sort of "democratic pressure" on another authoritarian countries.

True but Russia is significantly weaker than Germany was even when it was Wiemar Republic in terms of economic strength. You just have to wait for the Regime to wither and die. The sad fact is that aside from limiting Russian to Russia, there is not much we can do.

That's correct, so I am left with criticizing it every chance I get

It sucks but that's all you can do. The optimist in me believes that Putin will wrongfoot himself at some stage, loose his halo and fall out of favor. He would be replaced quickly by someone else with similar methods. The longer he stays in there the larger his shadow grows, and the less likely someone will step in to fill it.
 
Sorry, but this is largely your wishful thinking. Of course, we are all headed for depression. But "collapse" is certainly not appropriate term. Neither do I believe effects on Estonia will be considerably more severe than those on Russia. I am willing to make a bet with you, if you wish. Care to predict, when shall Russia's GDP per capita surpass that of Estonia?
So, Snorrius, you do not want to make a bet? Or did your crystal ball go foggy?:p
 
My crystall ball tells me Latvia will crumble during 2009, so Estonia will be able to keep its currency board until 2010 at max.
Not exactly what I asked and still pretty obscure, but all right, divination isn't maths. :D
Latvia is indeed already waist deep in shait, so I won't pick on what you mean by "crumble", but would you care to specify what do you mean by "keeping currency board"? Do you mean totally giving up currency board and letting EEK on free float? Or do you mean EEK will be strongly devalued in 2010 the latest? Considering that Russia is already weekly devaluating ruble bit by bit, this would not say much, but still I accept the bet. Neither scenario is going to happen. EEK will keep its fixed exchange rate at 15.6466 per €1 at least until 2011, or until Estonia switches to euro, whichever happens sooner. What do you want to bet on? :p
 
An update about the Treason law:

Russian push on treason raises fears
By Michael Schwirtz
Sunday, December 21, 2008

MOSCOW: In a country where government critics already feel vulnerable, legislation to expand the definition of treason has inspired a new round of hand-wringing about how far the state will go to rein in dissenters and regulate Russians' contact with foreigners.

Even certain conversations with a foreign reporter could be "considered treason under the new legislation," contends Ernst Chyorny, the leader of a human rights group in Moscow, because they could be seen as "consultative" support to a foreign entity. And that, he says, could land a violator in prison for as long as 20 years.

As with existing law, the legislation would forbid actions considered detrimental to Russian security. But the legislation, if passed, would remove qualifiers that require such actions to be "hostile" and directed against the "external security" of Russia.

In addition, it would prohibit Russians from passing certain information not only to other countries but also to foreign nongovernment groups.

Many of those groups, which the Kremlin often accuses of fronting for spy agencies, have been among the most vocal critics of the government's curtailment of media and civic freedoms and the consolidation of power under Vladimir Putin, the former Russian president who is now prime minister.

Taken together, critics say, the changes could further muddle what they say are already ambiguous espionage laws and perhaps - at worst - presage a return of the Soviet-era practice of prosecuting government critics as traitors. But it remains unclear whether the bill will pass the Parliament in its current form, and, even then, whether and how the government would employ the rules.

Gennady Gudkov, a former intelligence officer who is a deputy chairman of the security committee in the State Duma, or lower house of Parliament, said some elements of the new legislation were unclear and could be amended when the Duma begins deliberating it, perhaps in January.

Government officials have defended the proposed changes, backed by Putin and his allies in the Russian security services, saying they are needed to clarify and update current laws that have failed to keep pace with the law-dodging ingenuity of modern spies, who, officials say, increasingly work through foreign nongovernment organizations.

The government became especially concerned about such groups because it was suspicious of their ties to the protagonists in the so-called "color revolutions" that toppled Kremlin-friendly governments in Georgia and Ukraine.

The new bill accompanies other legislative changes proposed recently that would appear intended to strengthen the control of the authorities as Russia succumbs to the effects of the global financial crisis.

In particular, some see the maneuvers as part of a strategy by Putin, who was an officer in the KGB and then the director of its successor, the FSB, to expand further the authority of his former security service colleagues, who have come to dominate the government since Putin came to power as president in 2000.

"The secret police de facto captured the government a long time ago," said Lev Ponomaryov, who leads the Moscow group For Human Rights. "Now they want to capture it de jure."

More worrisome, critics say, is that it comes on the heels of legislation, which hinges on the signature of the president, Dmitri Medvedev, that eliminates jury trials in treason cases, handing them instead to judges who are beholden to the government for their jobs.

Even the Public Chamber, which includes many Kremlin-appointed civic leaders, has condemned that measure.

"The legislation is motivated by the interests of the security services, which seek to eliminate the need to investigate criminal cases without legal violations as well as the need to prove the guilt of suspects in a real contest with defense attorneys before courts that involve representatives of the people able to hand down not only guilty verdicts but also acquittals," the group said in a statement last week.

People on both sides of the debate over the latest legislation agree that the old laws on treason and espionage were too vague. But critics say the proposals could further endanger those who run afoul of the security services, including employees of nongovernment organizations, journalists and academics - especially scientists.

Scientists have suffered the brunt of what critics have deemed "spy mania" by the security services in recent years, in good part because their work often involves sharing information with foreign colleagues - something that was intensely regulated in the Soviet era.

"Scientists are not able to communicate with one another, because it is unclear how this contact will be interpreted by investigators," said Anna Stavitskaya, a prominent human rights lawyer who has defended several scientists in recent years.

At least a dozen scientists have been charged with espionage, in cases pursued by the security services since Putin came to power. Prominent academics and human rights groups inside Russia and abroad have accused overzealous officers of fabricating evidence and pressuring judges in many of these cases.

In a rare embarrassment for the security services, investigators were forced last year to dismiss a case against two Siberian physicists, the brothers Igor and Oleg Minin, who were accused by the FSB of revealing state secrets in one of their academic works, even though their manuscript had been cleared by their university as containing no classified materials.

Chyorny, whose human rights group has defended scientists at the European Court of Human Rights, said he feared that the new legislation would make it much more difficult to overcome such accusations.

Just as I said: it's a tool designed to crush nongovernmental organizations in Russia.

Authoritarian: +1
Dissent: -10

:crazyeye:
 
So the Russian People are absolutely fine with forgoing the right to be represented, noticed and heard as long as there is bread on their table and a roof above their heads?
 
It's almost like they are culturally or ethnically unable to handle democracy, isnt it?
 
... and as long as the Mother Russia pretends to be a superpower.

Funny you say Mother Russia. My national personification of Russia had always been a grumpy old bearded man wearing a large furry hat.

Like this:
 
How do Russians feel about the word "Russkie"? I always thought it was a pejorative term.
 
How do Russians feel about the word "Russkie"? I always thought it was a pejorative term.

Really? i never would, although I admit I always heard it in 1980s cold war movies where ther baddie was a heartless, souless communist killing machine
 
How do Russians feel about the word "Russkie"?

"Russki" (Русский) in Russian means exactly that, "Russian". With no pejorative connotations.

Funny you say Mother Russia. My national personification of Russia had always been a grumpy old bearded man wearing a large furry hat.

 
Top Bottom