"Russia will soon be a one party state"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The things about people's rule (democracy) is that most people would want best a democracy where if in the majority, they got what the majority wanted, aka, an unliberal democracy. One has to convincingly argue to individuals why a Liberal democracy is what they should aim for, and why it is a benefit directly to them - demagogues can easily make the case for illiberal democracy, Liberals seem currently unable to make the countercase.

Because one will end up as a minority at some point. Thats why Madison didnt spend time trying to think up creative ways to persuade people to liberalism, he just tried to create a polity that was diverse enough that there wouldnt be a permanent majority.

In a place like Iraq, where politics revolves around sect, and one sect has a majority, theres little inclination towards liberalism. Ditto in a place like Venezuala, where politics is focused on race/class. In Pakistan, lots of folks seem very concerned about liberalism. It really varies from polity to polity.

Russia, Im not so sure its a problem of permanent majorities like in Iraq or Venezuala, more its the perceived or actual failure of liberalism to deliver results during its period of quasi-ascendancy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The ban on pre-election coalitions combines with the increased threshold to enter parliament, to reduce the extent of parliamentary opposition. Its a clever use of technical rules to gradually limit democracy (whether parliamentary or not, some legislative opposition is essential to a functioning democracy in the real world)

A 7% threshold is not particularly high demand for a party to be represented in the Parliment. If the oposition can only get into the parliment by having tiny parties with no support joining together, then the opposition already is hopelessly lost.

I would have to agree with the government spokesman in the opening post, but what the opposition needs to do is get together and decide that their opposition to the Putin system is worth more than their opposition to each other.

So why does Putin bother with these things? Perhaps he smart enough to realize that he and his clique wont always be so popular (I saw an article saying that United Russia was polling at only about 60%, and thats with $100 oil pumping the Russian economy, and a still live memory of the economic collapse of 1998) and that NOW is the time to implement changes that will help him and them stay in power when his popularity wanes.

Those technical changes won't keep anyone in power in perpetuity - if they are only polling 60%, that means that there are 40% of voters out there who might go elsewhere- if there aren't even four opposition parties in Russia each able to poll 10%, or two that can get 20%, then the issue at hands is the fractured and weak nature of the opposition, and no amount of technical hand holding will help them.

The biggest and most important thing that Putin's clique has done is secure the media.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Those technical changes won't keep anyone in power in perpetuity

Not by themselves alone. Any action that ALONE would work, would be too obvious. Putin is doing lots of actions, each individually defensible, that in combination make Russia less democractic. The pre-election coalition ban and threshold. The ban on indepenent candidates. The central role in appointing governors. The registration requirements for NGO's. The takeover of the broadcast media (done, legally, by prosecuting opposition media owners for tax evasion and related, charges that are probably true, just not enforced when the Kremlins friends are involved). The unofficial intimidation of the most threatening individuals in the print media (while still allowing some very hostile print media to exist)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


A 7% threshold is not particularly high demand for a party to be represented in the Parliment. If the oposition can only get into the parliment by having tiny parties with no support joining together, then the opposition already is hopelessly lost.

No one expected the liberal opposition (Yabloko, Union of Right Forces, Kasparov) to win this election. They are (unfairly IMO) blamed for everything wrong with the Yeltsin years, and Putin is riding high on the economy. Their goal was simply to be a voice in parliament. And this manipulation (off hand, I know some democracies with 6% thresholds, but I think they all DO allow pre-electoral coalitions) cuts that off.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Those technical changes won't keep anyone in power in perpetuity - if they are only polling 60%, that means that there are 40% of voters out there who might go elsewhere- if there aren't even four opposition parties in Russia each able to poll 10%, or two that can get 20%, then the issue at hands is the fractured and weak nature of the opposition, and no amount of technical hand holding will help them.

There are parties that can poll 10%, notably the Communist Party. You seem to be under the impression that the liberal opposition parties are the only opposition parties in Russia. Such is not the case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No one expected the liberal opposition (Yabloko, Union of Right Forces, Kasparov) to win this election. They are (unfairly IMO) blamed for everything wrong with the Yeltsin years, and Putin is riding high on the economy. Their goal was simply to be a voice in parliament. And this manipulation (off hand, I know some democracies with 6% thresholds, but I think they all DO allow pre-electoral coalitions) cuts that off.

Why should it only be a Liberal opposition, and who is talking about them winning?

Again, the liberal parties, if their fear is so great, should have gotten all together, made one joint list, and ran with it, and one would hope they would be able to poll more than 7% of voters in Russia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There are parties that can poll 10%, notably the Communist Party. You seem to be under the impression that the liberal opposition parties are the only opposition parties in Russia. Such is not the case.

I know that, which is why the 7% is not a big deal for me. There being no parties in opposition in the parliment that support a liberal western course is and should not be the argument against Putin, because if no party with that line can score even 7%, then Liberals have bigger issues.

An opposition is an opposition, and if the opposition is vocal, then democracy is being served.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The ban on indepenent candidates. The takeover of the broadcast media (done, legally, by prosecuting opposition media owners for tax evasion and related, charges that are probably true, just not enforced when the Kremlins friends are involved). The unofficial intimidation of the most threatening individuals in the print media (while still allowing some very hostile print media to exist)

These I would say are the most dangerous things to democracy that Putin has done. But they can also be undone, if the opposition got its act together.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Why should it only be a Liberal opposition, and who is talking about them winning?

Again, the liberal parties, if their fear is so great, should have gotten all together, made one joint list, and ran with it, and one would hope they would be able to poll more than 7% of voters in Russia.

its the liberal opposition that was complaining. Somehow I think that first squashing the voice of one part of the opposition (perhaps the one Putin fears more in the long term, CP voters tend to be elderly IIUC) is a matter of concern.

As for making a joint list, thats apparently exactly whats banned under the pre-electoral coalitions rule. Theyd actually have to form a joint party. Given that one of the parties is "right liberal" pro-capitalist (Union of Right Forces) and one is "Left Liberal" progressive (Yabloko) and one is focused on an odd personality (Kasporov) requiring them to merge is probably a strategy to alienate their supporters and thus destroy them.

You keep tossing the responsibility back to the liberal parties, and ignore WHY Putin did this.

Kinda like the French pol under the Orleanists, who responded to complaints about the property based limited suffrage, by suggesting that those complaining should simply enrich themselves.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


These I would say are the most dangerous things to democracy that Putin has done. But they can also be undone, if the opposition got its act together.

which will be that much harder if no can hear them. If they had a free media, they could reach the public through the media. If they had a voice in parliament they could reach the public through parliamentary speeches. By keeping them out of both, you silence them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You keep tossing the responsibility back to the liberal parties, and ignore WHY Putin did this.

Why any aliberal government in power would take steps to perpetuate its rule is obvious and not worth discussing.

And yes, the responsibility is on the Liberals. Wow, so lets say these rules had not been changed, so that these three parties could get together and run a joint campaign, and lets be optimistic and give them 20% of the vote (far more than they could probably even get). You know what? They are still a small minority unable to do anything to set Russian policy, and they would split up once in the parliment anyways because as you said, the parties still disagree with themselves economically.

So what really is accomplished? Do they place their support of Liberalism above their own narrower interests? Then they should form a Liberal party, and maybe, once they get more and more power with time, assuming their message is one that gets to Russian voters, then they can start bickering about economic policy.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Why any aliberal government in power would take steps to perpetuate its rule is obvious and not worth discussing.

The point of discussing this here is to clarify for everyone the nature of the govt in Russia, not to hand out advice to Russian politicians, who probably dont spare time to peruse this board.

And yes, the responsibility is on the Liberals. Wow, so lets say these rules had not been changed, so that these three parties could get together and run a joint campaign, and lets be optimistic and give them 20% of the vote (far more than they could probably even get). You know what? They are still a small minority unable to do anything to set Russian policy, and they would split up once in the parliment anyways because as you said, the parties still disagree with themselves economically.

But theyd be in parliament, which would give them a bully pulpit to criticize the govt, a much better position to be if and when economic and other conditions lead to a loss in popularity for Putin, as opposed to be silenced and forgotten.

So what really is accomplished? Do they place their support of Liberalism above their own narrower interests? Then they should form a Liberal party, and maybe, once they get more and more power with time, assuming their message is one that gets to Russian voters, then they can start bickering about economic policy.

Except they actually need votes to get into parliament, and their voters may not respond well to diluting their platforms. And its not just the economic divisions between Yabloko and URF (although I doubt many Russians consider their economic positions to be a luxury) Folks who are drawn to Kasporov may not be eager to vote for "old school" pols from the Yeltsin era, while folks concerned about Kasporovs oddities may not want to vote for him.

Ive followed Israeli politics for over 30 years, and the question of merging parties vs running a joint list vs running independently and making a coalition post election, is a very non-trivial strategic decision.

[lord of the mark]

"FOUR-PARTY PARLIAMENT?

Opinion polls show the Communists are the only party other than United Russia assured of exceeding the 7 percent threshold to qualify for seats in parliament.

But Russian pollsters have said they believe last-minute shifts in voter intentions should give two other parties, the pro-Kremlin Fair Russia and the nationalist LDPR, just enough votes to sneak into parliament.

Kremlin opponents and non-governmental groups say they have registered large numbers of violations of election rules.

They have reported dozens of cases of people being told by their employers to turn up for work on Sunday where managers will check if they voted, and of people being registered to vote in more than one polling station.

Western governments are concerned that Europe's main ODIHR vote monitoring watchdog -- widely regarded as the yardstick for elections in ex-Soviet states -- will not be at the vote. The body pulled out, citing obstruction from Moscow.

A senior member of the United Russia party said it was not up to foreign observers to determine if the election was fair.

"It is not foreign election observers who guarantee democracy in Russia, but first and foremost it is the will and political culture of the people," said Lyubov Sliska, deputy speaker of the State Duma lower house of parliament.

Western diplomats said the absence of ODIHR monitors would make it hard for them to assess the election.

"We normally wait for the ODIHR report and then align ourselves with it, but without it, we're in a difficult position," said one diplomat.

United Russia leader Boris Gryzlov urged people to turn out to vote. "In effect this will be a referendum, a referendum in support of Vladimir Putin," he said.

It was important that "all those who believe in the new Russia should come to the polling stations and vote for the country's future," Gryzlov said. Turnout at the last parliamentary election in 2003 was just under 56 percent.

The opposition Yabloko party, one of several expected to fall short of the threshold for seats, wrapped up its campaign with a rally of about 300 people in Moscow.

"We live in a country without independent courts, without independent political institutions and without a free press," party leader Grigory Yavlinsky told his supporters. "

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But theyd be in parliament, which would give them a bully pulpit to criticize the govt, a much better position to be if and when economic and other conditions lead to a loss in popularity for Putin, as opposed to be silenced and forgotten.

So Russians watch CSPAN? And if they make parlimetary speeches, I am sure the Putin allied press will give them lots of airtime....

Ive followed Israeli politics for over 30 years, and the question of merging parties vs running a joint list vs running independently and making a coalition post election, is a very non-trivial strategic decision.

Except this isn't Israel, or the US, or France, or Britain. Its Russia.

[Dinner]

A new BBC report comes up with some startling new harassment alegations and a very good reason why "Fraud will be higher then ever". This look bad for Russia even with Serbs boundless optimism.

Harassment claims mar Russia poll

Russian President Vladimir Putin has assured foreign ambassadors that the parliamentary election on Sunday will be honest, transparent and - as he put it - "without systematic flaws or shortcomings".

But already some election monitoring groups and human rights organisations have accused the authorities of trying to manipulate the result by intimidating the opposition and pressurising voters into supporting the ruling party - United Russia.

Although in many ways this is a non-election - as it is widely assumed United Russia will again win a massive majority - much more rides on the result now that Mr Putin has become the party's top candidate.

United Russia is portraying the vote as a referendum on Mr Putin's eight years in office.

And when he visited Krasnoyarsk early in the campaign, Mr Putin himself increased the stakes by saying a big majority would give him the "moral right" to continue to wield political influence even after he comes to the end of his term as president next spring.

Fraud allegations

There is another key difference from the last election.

All the 85 powerful regional governors now owe their loyalty to the Kremlin. Instead of being elected by the local population, they are directly appointed by Mr Putin.

No surprise, then, that 75% of the governors have decided to run as the top candidates for the ruling party in their regions.

"Now there is an unique factor that was never before present in elections," said Nikolai Petrov, an expert on Russian regional government at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Moscow.

"The goal for governors is to deliver as many votes as possible... it is an exam for them to prove their loyalty and efficiency.

"So I would say that fraud is inevitable and will be higher than ever," Mr Petrov said.

'Warning'

A dingy apartment block in Krasnoyarsk might seem a strange place to go in search of evidence of this election being manipulated.

But inside one of the small flats there was a civil servant who was willing to talk to us because - as she put it - she was "so disgusted with United Russia". She asked us to disguise her identity.

At a meeting at work three weeks ago, she says she was told by her manager that she would be responsible for all the staff in the office living in the same district as her.

"On voting day, all of them have to call me by midday to say that they have voted for United Russia," she said.

"I was told it was serious. It was like a warning," she went on.

Court case

Earlier, outside a city court, we came across another disillusioned citizen of Krasnoyarsk.

Vladislav Korolyov is local leader of the small liberal opposition party, the Union of Right Forces, which won seats in the regional parliament earlier this year.

We met him as he was about to enter court to hear the result of a case he had brought against police who confiscated almost two million election leaflets from his party earlier this month.

The police said the leaflets contained illegal advertising. The judge ruled in their favour.

Mr Korolyov was not surprised by the court's decision, alleging it was part of a "nationwide police operation" against his party.

"It includes following us around, bugging our phones and confiscating material," he said.

"Why are they so afraid of our party if the opinion polls show we will only get 1% [of the vote]," he added.

United Russia rally

From another building across town on a crisp Siberian winter's evening came the sound of Dixieland jazz.

It was followed by traditional Russian singing, high-energy dance music, and a low-energy boy-band.

Between the music came speeches and rapturous applause. It was a big campaign event for United Russia which - as in Moscow and elsewhere - was perfectly choreographed.

In the midst of the audience sat the chief guest - the governor of Krasnoyarsk, Alexander Khloponin. He heads United Russia's candidate list in the region.

Still in his early 40s, he is a popular man. As a former manager of a huge Siberian mining and metals conglomerate, he is respected as an efficient and energetic administrator.

"He's relatively liberal by the standards of Russian regional politics," says Prof Grigoriy Golosov of St Petersburg European University.

"And he's done a lot to promote the image of the region," he adds.

The governor was quick to dismiss the allegations that some members of his administration were trying to manipulate the election result in favour of the ruling party.

"Do you know anywhere where the opposition says anything else? It's the same everywhere," Mr Khloponin said.

But he pledged to take action if any official was caught acting illegally.

"If there is a real fact that someone has pressurised people, then that person will lose his job."

Mr Khloponin is said to be close to President Putin, but he denies being under any pressure from the Kremlin over the election.

"I feel no pressure," he said.

"I am responsible before our party. If people vote for other parties that means I have not been very effective."

He left with another pledge - that the election in Krasnoyarsk would be interesting and competitive with the Communist Party doing well.

On Monday, the people of Krasnoyarsk will know how much of a contest there has been.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7120140.stm