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

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Apparently Russians are content to lose certain liberties in order to keep Russia intact.

Well, I guess Americans and Russians have more in common than I thought...

How is that stupid? Its true! Russians are willing to give up liberties to keep their country intact, while Americans are willing to give up liberty to keep sense of security intact.

[bipolarbear]

I hope to god he brings back the good ol' Hammer and Sickle!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
I hope to god he brings back the good ol' Hammer and Sickle!

He may start calling himself Czar before too long

[Serb]

Originally posted by VetLegion


YES.

Very undemocratic. Thank you.

Then where have you been so long?
1) We already had this system for governors in 1993-1994.
2) We have absolutely the same system for election of PM. The head of state offers his candidate for prime minister and our parliament approve or doesn't approve this candidate. Now Putin offers ABSOLUTELY the same scheme for governors.
3) This scheme DOESN'T contradict with our constitution.
4) The citizens of the brightest example of democracy, the last hope of human kind, the US of A of course, do not have "non of the above" option when they vote and do not elect their presidents directly. Does it mean US of A isn't democracy?
5) Why the hell every democracy should be identical?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson


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....

1) He thought about this reform before 9/3, I'm sure.
2) Since this new law doesn't exist yet, it's only an offer so far, I can't say for sure, but I suspect this new law will contain a mechanism for withdrawal of governors (it's something that we lack now). So governors will be way more controllable now, but it's only my guess.

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.

And of course it scares you to death, right?

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.

I don't see any problem with that.

Go democracy!

Don't worry. If will go, we'll take you with us. We are brothers, as you say and relatives should be kept close.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We had massive corruption in our government from the end of the Civil War until roughly the turn of the century. We didn't get rid of it be contracting the rights of the people. We fought to create a more honest government. Russians don't want to do the hard work necessary to take control of their government. They're lazy and want a strongman to do it for them. Sad.

I actually do not see how Russians cannot control their government anymore.
I am a voter. I elect my representative for the parliament of my region. Then the parliament of my region approve or doesn't approve a president's candidate for governor. So, yes, I do not directly elect my governor, but I do it through my representative in local parliament. My representative in local parliament should care about opinion of his voters, if his voters will be unhappy about his actions he will not be re-elected,
Is it so undemocratic? Is it reduce my rights so much?
AFAIK, you in US do not elect your presidents directly, but do it throught your representatives. Does it reduce your rights?

[notyoueither]

pssst. Serb. Parliamentary systems.

We don't elect our prime ministers or premiers. Our pm's and 'govenors' are the leaders of their parties. They can be changed without us having any say at all. During elections we don't have the opportunity to vote for the leader directly. Instead we have to choose who to vote for on a mix of party leader, party policy, and individual merits of candidates in our ridings.

I think the objection to Putin's proposal would be that it is top down. That would be what jars to many. Sort of like how many North Americans view the French ban on religious clothing in schools. It's totally alien in a free society, isn't it? Maybe, but our societies do not have to deal with the same history or conditions as the French.

[Serb]

And remind me who is your head of state, isn't it British queen by chance?

[notyoueither]

That's going below the belt.

It must seem really strange to people who don't live in parliamentary monarchies. It seems strange to a good number who do.

I like it. We don't have the sort of **** fests that I have observed in some other places.

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's going below the belt.

Sorry.

[Sikander]

How exactly is making Putin dictator for life going to solve Russia's problems again?

[Serb]

And who said he is dictator for life?
He will left the office in 2008.

[Az]

And who said he is dictator for life?
He will left the office in 2008.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
And who said he is dictator for life?
He will left the office in 2008.

Or change the constitution
Or make a puppet inherit his place

[The Vagabond]

The more I think about it, the less I like it. It's a huge mistake. I am very disappointed.

Serb, what about the national republics? Won't they deeply resent no longer being able to elect their own leader? Their leader being appointed by Moscow will eventually lead to more nationalism and separatism. WTF is Putin thinking about?! Rather than saving Russia, he will only destroy it.

Hell, this is actually my first ever serious disagreement with Putin's policies (after the anthem issue at least). But this issue is so huge and decisive that I wonder whether I can still consider myself a supporter of Putin.