Putin to combat terrorism by...how else?...taking away rights

[Shi Huangdi]

Putin is centralizing the country, but that doesn't make a Russia a dictatorship, simply a more unitary government. Russia has a long political tradition of powerful, centralized leadership and this seems a good way of accomplishing that without becoming a dictatorship.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Putin is centralizing the country, but that doesn't make a Russia a dictatorship, simply a more unitary government. Russia has a long political tradition of powerful, centralized leadership and this seems a good way of accomplishing that without becoming a dictatorship.

Russia also has a long political tradition of despotism

[DinoDoc]

You dare question your god, Comrade!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says God can't be a despot .

[Serb]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't think Putin wants a democracy in the meaning we understand it in the west.

Sure, because Russians do not have democratic traditions and institutions, like you had for centuries. Yeltsin's reforms brought chaos, and as consequence, brought crime and corruption instead of democracy. Now Putin tries to reduce this chaos. You need decades to establish true and successful democracy. Our current mess we call democracy would kill us way faster than decades if will do nothing.

[The Vagabond]

I am rather confused about Putin's proposal. I don't know what to think.

I would only welcome if city mayors were elect-appointed in the way Putin suggests. The thing is that many Russian oblasts consist of one huge city (accounting for about half the population of the oblast) on the one hand, and smaller cities and rural area on the other hand. If both the governor of the oblast and the mayor of the city are elected by popular vote, it results in a nasty dual-power situation in the region. But on the level of subjects of the Federation (oblasts and republics), this is not acceptable, IMHO. They should be elected.

On my list of values, saving Russia is more important than democracy. I would never sacrifice Russia just for the sake of democracy. But what is proposed here is very doubtful at best. Why should we sacrifice certain democratic achievements and practices for the sake of an illusion? How the hell is this going to help to curb corruption and fight terrorism?

I am leaning towards to Putin.

[Serb]

Oh come on, don't you know how we elect our governors? The **** how shouts louder than others and brings more vodka usually wins. Abramovich is governor of Chukotka was the right choice of the people?
How do you like Evdokimov as governor of Altay?
I can understand when Americans elect terminator as governor. He is not only a great actor (who else could play T-800 like Arnie did), but great sportsmen as well. But when comedian, sponsored by local mafia elected governor...
Just face it- absolute majority of Russian governors now- mofos, crowd leaders or candidates of local mafia.
The sad truth is that we CAN'T, unfortunately CAN'T elect normal, proffesional, not affected by corruption or ties with mafia governors. We elect f*ckers (who later rule 8-12 years) and we must face it. And the link between them and war is pretty obvios. We'll be beaten again and again, if we will not become strong. And we can't become strong if such tsarki will rule in our regions forever.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

THE PEOPLE ARE CLAMORING FOR ZOMBIESTALIN!!!!!!

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I didn't know the constitution barred Putin from candidating a third time, but I agree with you that he won't spit on the constitution this way.
I don't think Putin wants a democracy in the meaning we understand it in the west. I think Putin wants an elective authoritarian system, i.e. one where the head of State has an immense power, but where it is possible to oust him through the vote.

The only way for Russia to have a stable democratic political system is to force it on its citizens, through a barrel of a gun. Only a tyranny by majority will repress the minority, which in the Marxist socio-economic perspective, has always exploited Russia.

In essense, then, authoritarianism and democracy will have to mend ways for Russia to succeed, politically and economically.

[notyoueither]

[Berzerker]

I agree with Chegitz: the answer to corruption by local officials is to send the federal police to break down on them and apply the law, the same way you got rid of the oligarchs.

Removing local democracy is not a solution, as governors may see their power grow unchallenged just the same, as long as they remain nice little brownnosers in Moscow.

Aren't you removing democracy by sending in federal troops? The people voted the those politicians in even if they are corrupt, God knows how corrupt our party system is. That's Putin's biggest mistake, the creation of parties. That's an attempt (intentional or not) to separate the voters from their representatives just a little bit more. It doesn't matter much if Putin can nominate governors, it's the regional legislatures that confirm them just like our system of the Senate confirming presidential appointments.

[notyoueither]

The FBI arresting a corrupt governor would be 'removing democracy'?

I think that would be the best way to go, but I don't know that Russia is ready yet for real democracy. Russians themselves have to want it. So long as they are willing to fritter it away into the hands of strongmen they aren't really going to have it.

To their credit, they do not live where Yanks, Brits, or Frogs do. They have a different set of circumstances to deal with. I'm rather impressed with the level of commitment they show to the ideal so far. I think they'll come out alright, after a very bumpy road. Or maybe I should say I hope.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Aren't you removing democracy by sending in federal troops? The people voted the those politicians in even if they are corrupt, God knows how corrupt our party system is. That's Putin's biggest mistake, the creation of parties. That's an attempt (intentional or not) to separate the voters from their representatives just a little bit more. It doesn't matter much if Putin can nominate governors, it's the regional legislatures that confirm them just like our system of the Senate confirming presidential appointments.

I would agree with you here, Berzerker.

Multi-party politics destroy initiative and stifle progress.
They lead to, what I would call, "stagnation by popular demand."

One-party, MULTI-CANDIDATE compulsory democracy is preferrable, at least, in my opinion. Direct democracy is best, however, but no where in the world are the material conditions in place for such a revolutionary system.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb Alll current governors will stay in charge of their regions untill the end of their terms. The terms of absolute majority of governors will end after 2008, when Putin will not be a president anymore.

It is pretty strange, then. Because if it is needed to fight terrorism, I guess it should be done at once. If the old gouvernors can stay, I guess they don't trouble Putin in the case of war against terrorism, and yet He says the changes are needed to fight terrorism....

Personally, I don't think that anti-democratic aspect of this reform is the most iimportant one. This reform centralises the state and gives even more power in hands of the head of the state. It will strenghten Russia as a whole.
(now I see Shi told the same)

I didn't know the constitution barred Putin from candidating a third time, but I agree with you that he won't spit on the constitution this way.

Putin can still be interested personally in a strong power of president after ceasing to be a president: taken into account his popularity, He won't have problems with puting some his man on the sit.

Our current mess we call democracy would kill us way faster than decades if will do nothing.

Go democracy!

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't know that Russia is ready yet for real democracy. Russians themselves have to want it. So long as they are willing to fritter it away into the hands of strongmen they aren't really going to have it.

What is "real democracy"? In the Western sense? That's not democracy. In the literal meaning of the world? Well....

Democracy is not comprised for the Russian psyche. It is either too big or too small to fit.

Either one has to be grown, and that can only be achieved through practical education.

That is why I prefer a one-party, multi-candidate compulsory democracy, as a first-step solution.