"Russia will soon be a one party state"

[Sirotnikov]

Strawman alert. No one here holds that democracy flourished under Yeltsin, and there was already considerable doubts about Yeltsin at least from his break with the liberals before the '96 election. Despite the Clinton admin remaining committed to him. I was in the US, and I was following the debate such as it was about US policy in Russia. I dont have quotes off the top of my head, but theres been a lot of strawman stuff tossed around about US hero worship for Yeltsin - most of that involves taking views that WERE held here in 1991 and 1992, and projecting them onto 1996 and 1997.

This is quite the nitpicking.

His major argument is that there never was a healthy democratic process, and that the parties were not actual representation of popular movements, but rather stubs ran by secret services, or a small group of influentual businessmen.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Serb

And who should decide that? Santa? Harry Potter?

Obviously it is the job of the court to decide such questions of legality. That said it would all be pointless if the Judicery wasn't completely independent of the executive. If the executive can just hire, fire, replace, have shot, feed polonium sushi, or what ever to all of the judges who refuse to cow tow to his every whim then you no longer have a real court. You have a kangaroo court controlled by the executive with no real over sight powers.

I'm not saying Russian courts are completely controlled by the executive but Tsar Putin has ways of making his desires felt and he can reward or make life hard for people who upset him including judges. Just look at how he overtly influenced the court during the Yukos affair.

[The Vagabond]

Small Democratic Step
By Michael McFaul

For the last eight years of Vladimir Putin's presidency, friends of mine who either worked for or were simply sympathetic to the Kremlin have argued at various times that Russia was a "managed" democracy, a "sovereign" democracy or an autocracy like China on the long road to democracy via the autocratic-modernizer path. Western observers of Russian internal developments, including the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have echoed this third argument, emphasizing that Russia's transition from communism to democracy would be a long one but that it is nonetheless under way.

My response has been twofold. First, these "special" forms of democracy are just camouflage for anti-democratic actions. To be sure, there are many forms of democratic rule around the world, and the U.S. system, incidentally, is by no means the most democratic form of government. But all democracies share a few fundamental features, including first and foremost competition in elections for national office and some institutional constraints on those in elected office. By these simple measures, Russia is clearly less democratic today than at the beginning of Putin's time in office.

Second, the long road to democracy is not some inevitable course of history that all countries follow. Rather, real human beings take actions to either impede or promote democratic practices. Democracy -- or its absence -- is not made by economic, cultural or historical determinants. Rather, democrats make democracy, and autocrats prevent it.


Motivated by the centrality of individual action, I have pushed back to my Putin supporters with the rhetorical question: Name me one Putin policy or decision over the last eight years that has made the political system more democratic? Some name the 13 percent flat tax, but this reform was about economic policy, not governance. Moreover, many might ask if it is democratic when billionaires pay the same tax rate as factory workers.

Others cite the reform of the electoral law for the State Duma, which theoretically could have been a democratic reform since we know that electoral systems based on proportional representation stimulate party development. In reality, however, the results of the last parliamentary elections demonstrated that an electoral mandate for Putin -- not the development of political parties -- was the goal of electoral law reform. Perhaps most absurd, earlier this month some tried to portray the arrest of opposition leader Garry Kasparov as an example of the rule of law, since he did "break the law." I was not convinced by these and other examples of Putin's supposed democratic reforms.

As of Monday, however, I now stand corrected. By committing to stepping down as president by naming a successor, Putin has taken a small but important step toward democratization. Since December 1993, political forces of all ideological persuasions have acquiesced to the political rules of the game spelled out in the Constitution. Putin's decision to continue to adhere to these rules will make it more costly for future leaders to transgress them.

Of course, the reason Putin can feel secure in anointing Dmitry Medvedev as his successor is that Putin and his team have so weakened all other centers of political power. Could Medvedev win a competitive election campaign against candidates with financial resources, access to national television and the ability to win support from regional leaders? We will never know. And this changing of the guard is more like the strange 1999-2000 transition from Yeltsin to Putin than a genuine change of government through the electoral process. U.S. political scientist Adam Przeworski once defined democracy as a system of government in which incumbents lose elections. That is unlikely to be the case in March. Finally, the fact that everyone is already convinced that Medvedev will be the next president -- four months before any votes have been cast -- underscores just how undemocratic the Russian political system has become.

Nonetheless, the process of changing leaders now under way in Russia is more democratic than many alternatives. Perhaps most important, this process leaves open the possibility of unintended consequences sometime in the future, including power struggles between the president and the government, or between the president and a new presidential team that has an appreciation for the positive consequences of competition, whether it is in the marketplace or the political arena. But let's not get too excited. A quarter century ago, Kremlin watchers all got worked up about the fact that the new general secretary, Yury Andropov, listened to jazz. Similarly, when Medvedev dons a black leather jacket or listens to Deep Purple, this hardly makes him democratic.

That being said, however, it is a positive sign that Russia will have two leaders instead of one and that the government will be guided by constitutional rules. So, congratulations President Putin for your democratic move! May it be the first of many -- intended or otherwise.

Michael McFaul is a Hoover fellow and professor of political science at Stanford University and a senior associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/12/13/006.html

In fact, in what Putin does one can discern a few more small democratic steps. The author has been able to discern just one -- but this is already more than most people in the West are able to discern! So, congratulations dear author for your first move towards objectivity. May it be the first of many -- intended or otherwise.

[Serb]

Great comment, Vagabond.
And the article is BS of course.

Esp. this part:

Others cite the reform of the electoral law for the State Duma, which theoretically could have been a democratic reform since we know that electoral systems based on proportional representation stimulate party development.

Exactly. That was the point of reform - to stimulate few, but responsible parties, instead of an horde of short-lived ones.

But what we see next?

In reality, however, the results of the last parliamentary elections demonstrated that an electoral mandate for Putin -- not the development of political parties -- was the goal of electoral law reform.

BS. BS. BS and one more time BS.

The fact that Russian president has perhaps the highest domestic popularity rating among other presidents in the democratic world, makes it really not a big surprise that his party won 64% of the vote. However, the author completely misses the fact that four parties in new parliament represent over 90% of the voters who partisipated in election, while four parties of the last parliament represented only 70%.
If it's not an improvement, than I don't know what is it.

Next:

As of Monday, however, I now stand corrected. By committing to stepping down as president by naming a successor, Putin has taken a small but important step toward democratization.

My congrats to the author. During last five years I'm talking that Putin will quit the office in full accordance with our constitution, it's obvious for any unbiased Russian that Putin is democrat and respects the constitution. Now the guy who wrote the article looks stunned by this news.

Yeah, dear Mr. McFaul, Putin doesn't lie (a sig material, no?). And you Sir don't understand Russia at the slightest.

[VetLegion]

Russia has a 13% flat tax? I didn't know that.

The best thing about Putin is that he doesn't drink. Sober presidents

[Serb]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Russia has a 13% flat tax?

Yes. It was established soon after Putin took the office.

The best thing about Putin is that he doesn't drink. Sober presidents

He is not a complete abstinent like Bush and drinks time after time, but surely he is not an alcoholic like Eltsin was.
What I didn't know untill recently is that in addition to Putin, who is the 6th dan of judo , we have another master of martial arts in our government - Mr. Trutnev. He is the minister of natural resources and 5th dan of Kyokusinkai Karate.

[Serb]

Btw, Vet, what about your trip across Russia?
No luck this year?

[Sirotnikov]

Serb, I hope you are aware that some of your parties are fake.

Such as LDPR which has been set up by KGB during Gorbachev, and stayed a fake opposition group ever since.
The source for that, among others, is a Congress report about Soviet Active Measures.

more details on the virtual democracy:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7982&IBLOCK_ID=35

[Serb]

First link was enough. I already read that crap.
Fake or not LDPR is a political prostitute and always was.
However, what the author miss is the fact that all previous "ruling parties" like Demokraticheskii Vybor Rossy (DVR) or Nash Dom Rossya (NDR) were complete failures of the Kremlin. They didn't have support among population, were indeed a artificial formations (ok, let's call them fakes) and their popularity rating were close to rating of Eltsin (few percents).
United Russia is another case. It's popularity based upon Putin's popularity (about 70%) and Putin's popularity is based upon his achievments as president of the country. Eltsin, his PMs and their artificial ruling parties were just "blah-blah-blah", they did nothing to improve life of the Russians. Putin has drastically changed the country within just 8 years and improved the life of average Russian. That's why people vote for him and his party. The rest is BS.

[Sirotnikov]

Hey, it's not like I don't agree that United Russia is probably the the most supported party right now, mainly due to Putin's own personality cult popularity.
I also don't deny Putin has done some things right, and deserves some popularity. But I think a large measure of this is achieved by biased and controlled news reporting.

I don't think that the elections process was democratic, free, and fair to other parties. I have no doubt United Russia would have won. But I think that other parties were not given a fair chance, and eventually I also suspect that the that voter fraud increased the margin by which United Russia won.

I also don't think that such things as a free press, checks and balances between different government structures, a strong rule of law and protection from oppression (by the authorities) exist in your country right now.

[Serb]

Fine. The conversation is over then.

[Wezil]

Lies!

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Serb
Btw, Vet, what about your trip across Russia?
No luck this year?

Nope, I had too much work so I had to postpone it. Sucks because I had planned everything in detail. It's possible that I'm going to Beijing to see the Olympics though, and maybe I'm taking the Russia route to there (rail) and a plane back. But I don't know for sure yet.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Great comment, Vagabond.

Thanks.

And the article is BS of course.

But we better be advancing on a step-by-step basis when trying to convince our western friends. The article is valuable in the sense that it helps them to make this first step, together with the author himself.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Serb



Do I say that I know a thing about Belgian elections? I was born in the USSR and spent all 30 years of my life in Russia. If after reading my posts you think that author of that "insider's info" is brainwashed or something, then it's you who have problems, not me. That means you have a terribly corrupted vision of the situation here. Do I lecturing you about Belgian politics? No, because I know nothing about it. So, how the hell you can say that you know more about Russian politics, if you have never been to Russia, while I've spent all my life here?

We're talking about Russian politics here, of course you're not going to discuss Belgian politics
It's just that there are some very obvious problems in Russia that you try to ignore stubbornly. One point is that corruption is rampant in Russia, especially when someone of the military is involved. The famous Budanov case (and the Kungayeva girl) for instance shows this clearly. Another stunning example: the way how Pasjka Fedulev rose to power, how he was protected by various officials, how he acquired new property and got away with it. Corruption and crime is rampant in Russia, and Putin is responsible, at least indirectly.

I don't feel like going into too much details right now. But given these examples, I think you'll know what I mean, and I'm certain you'll have a hard time refuting the systematic flaws in the Russian system of which these examples are symptoms