Reforming Russia?

[mendeleyev]

From the Mendeleyev Journal:

It is obvious that the protesters aren't going away. This is a generation that has never experienced the Gulags and from all indications these new Russian citizen-voters seem to possess no fear over forcing Russia to adopt the direction that outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev wanted to steer the country.



A protest sign behind these OMOH (Interior Ministry troops) reads "Vova (Putin), are you a fool?"

Earlier this week protesters in Moscow chanted "Shame to NTV!" and "Russia without Putin! as dozens of people picketed in the shadow of Moscow's TV tower over footage that accused the opposition of paying anti-government protesters.

Much of the focus of the protesters anger was a film which had aired on NTV - a channel owned by state-run firm Gazprom. The film, The Anatomy of Protest, claimed that protesters to Putin's election as president had received "money and cookies" from foreign governments. Just like Putin's earlier comment that the white ribbons were condoms, the reference to "money and cookies" struck many ordinary citizens as childish and insulting.

Not only has there been a backlash on social media but several well-known Russian journalists have accused NTV of lying about the protest movement.

Russian police arrested young and old alike as demonstrators wore white ribbons symbolizing their desire that Mr. Putin step down. Among the approximately 100 citizens detained were opposition leaders Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Udaltsov.

[mendeleyev]

One of the candidates from this past election, Mikhail Prokhorov, is starting a new party. Again.

Now there is a campaign in social media to select a name for the party and Russian citizens are offered the opportunity to help select the name. If you as a Russian citizen find yourself in agreement with his policies then you may be interested in helping select a name for the party.

If so, here is the link: http://mdp2012.ru/poll/

I'd respectfully ask that those like myself who are not citizens of the Russian Federation refrain from any attempt at participating.

[mendeleyev]

The Mendeleyev Journal:

(Moscow) Yesterday Russia's Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Duma, passed long-awaited legislation to liberalize party politics in Russia. The vote was decidedly in favour of the reforms.

The legislation has been authored by out-going President Dmitry Medvedev after wide-spread political protests in December after public outcries amid charges of vote rigging in the Duma election. The President had promised to streamline rules for political participation and the bill decreases the number of members required for a party to officially register from the previous requirement of 40,000 to just 500 signatures nationwide.



Citizen protests after the December DUMA elections were met with police force. (photo: Ilya Varlumov, zualt.livejounal.com)

The new legislation is expected to be signed into law by Medvedev before his term in office expires in early May when Vladimir Putin, Russia's old-new President-elect resumes power.

Despite criticism from members such as the Council's legal committee chairman Nikolai Fyodorov who said the legislation was “risky” and would allow "extremists" to register too easily and enter the political process, the bill passed by a vote of 124-6.

Some Russians fear that the low minimum of 500 nationwide signatures will hurt chances for a united opposition since existing law prohibits small parties from joining forces in political blocs, thereby allowing the ruling United Russia party to remain dominant, an ironic situation as United Russia itself was formed by the merger of several parties in 2001.

President Medvedev has just concluded the BRICS summit in India.
             

[mendeleyev]

The Mendeleyev Journal reports that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev yesterday (Tuesday) signed into law the much-awaited political reform bill promised to citizens after the street protests in December and January. The new law becomes effectively today.

Leaders of several unregistered parties took part in the signing ceremony as President Medvedev approved the law that reduces the number of verified signatures parties will need to become registered/recognized by the Federal Election Commission.



The President signed the bill and spoke to the leaders inside the Kremlin, a signal to the importance of the new law. Mr. Medvedev spoke about the process of approving the bill by saying, "The registration procedure for political parties has been made more flexible. As you know, the Justice Ministry now gives the parties three months to correct any errors that may have been made. In general, the Justice Ministry has altered its position to a certain extent. It should no longer be perceived as barrier troops, as the participants of our last meeting put it, but as a necessary filter to rule out legal mistakes. The refusal to register a political party must now be accompanied by a detailed explanation.

Parties will now use a simplified reporting system, including financial reports. Instead of an annual report to the Central Election Commission and the Justice Ministry, reports will now be submitted once every three years to the Central Election Commission, which, in my opinion, is much easier and probably fairer.

I am also pleased that our major political parties, our political giants, have extended their support for the draft law. Moreover, all parliamentary parties showed remarkable accord: they voted unanimously. This is a unique situation for our country and in general for Parliament." 




Several leaders of unregistered opposition parties refused to take part in the signing of the bill, claiming that the new law was just another way to limit citizens' rights and to keep tabs on opposition leaders. There are presently seven registered parties in Russia and the new law will allow parties to nominate candidates for regional governorships but only after approval by the president.

Opposition leaders in attendance included Gennady Selesnyov of the Communist Party, nationalist leader Sergei Baburin, Right Cause leader Andrei Dunayev, Vladimir Probylovsky who leads the Panorama think tank, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and outspoken former Moscow prefect Oleg Mitvol who is starting a new green party.

Some observers fear that the new law intentionally fragments the opposition by reducing the minimum required signatures from 40,000 to 500, and the law places limits on small party inter-cooperation.

[mendeleyev]

In the Mendeleyev Journal:

It could have been just another day in the Soviet Union as Sergei Udaltsov left his home and walked towards the Russian Duma (Parliament) area for a meeting. Without warning men in plainclothes  stepped into the busy morning crowd near the Teatralnaya Metro station and pulled Sergei into a car without number plates and drove off to an unknown location. As it turns out he was whisked to a police station and detained. 
 

(Sergei Udaltsov, arrested on the sidewalk.)

However this is not the Soviet Union any longer and Sergei Udaltsov is head of a Russian opposition group called the Left Front. The arrest wasn't in Soviet times but happened in Moscow this Wednesday morning, 11 April 2012.

President-elect Vladimir Putin was on his way to speak to the Duma and Udaltsov was on his way to meet with a group of protesters outside the parliament entrance. Udaltsov never made it to the Duma but Putin did. Police then began to arrest other protesters who had gathered for Mr. Putin's arrival.

Oh, and the police charges for detaining Udaltsov as he walked Moscow's busy sidewalks? Udaltsova's wife, Anastasia Udaltsova, said that police have confirmed Udaltsov's arrest but given no reasons.

Udaltsov has been arrested several times in recent months for his leadership role in the Russian opposition movement.

As for Prime Minister Putin, he arrived just before Noon and addressed the State Duma with a review of his government and stressing the five top areas of his plan for the future. After the speech he answered questions on a range of topics, including Russia's WTO entry.

Mr. Putin even agreed to new constitutional language to prevent someone like himself from serving more than two terms. “As regards to removing from the Constitution 'two consecutive terms' and making it simply 'two terms,' I think it's reasonable. It can absolutely be considered — we should do it together with all the parties,” Putin said. He did however reserve the right to run again in 2018, saying that would be fair since he was elected this year under the current rules.
                                           
   

[mendeleyev]

I am so happy that friend/journalist Alena Popova is recovering from her injuries after being beaten by OMOH troops during the recent election protests.
 
 

 
(Wearing cast outside clinic enjoying mild spring weather between seminar sessions)

Today she had a check up and is doing fine. Her arm is still in a cast but doctors are pleased with the healing process.
 
 

 
(The arm is healing.)

Most importantly, her spirits are high and she is committed to striving for democracy in Russia and to helping women succeed in business.

I may be a little older, but Elena you are one my heroes and I am humbled by your attitude.


 

[mendeleyev]

From the Mendeleyev Journal:

Russian President Medvedev made the final Council address of his presidency to the State Council on Wednesday. Held in the historic St George Hall in the Kremlin Grand Palace, participants in the meeting included members of the Government, regional leaders, the higher courts’ presidents, the leadership of the Presidential Executive Office, the speakers of both houses of Parliament, public figures and business leaders.




(President Medvedev, Saint George Hall of the Kremlin Grand Palace.)

PRESIDENT OF the RUSSIAN FEDERATION DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Good afternoon, colleagues, friends,

In two weeks I will complete my term as President of the Russian Federation. I summed up the preliminary results of our joint efforts in the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly in December, where I also outlined my vision of our national priorities for the near future. Today I would like to explore them in a little more detail. I will emphasize straight away that the preparation of specific plans for the future Government’s work is a task for the new authorities. These plans must be submitted to the State Duma as part of the procedure for appointing a new Prime Minister. However, I believe that as the incumbent President, I must express my position on the ideology of Russia’s development.

Several years ago I voiced one simple and seemingly obvious idea: freedom is better than no freedom. These words were later repeated by many different people, sometimes with hope, sometimes with reproach, as a demand or a reminder of a promise. After all, there is nothing more natural than the desire for freedom.

Many people perceived these words as my political creed, and that is absolutely correct. I followed this ideal as closely as I could. I will repeat what I said in May 2008, as I assumed the office of President of the Russian Federation: I believe that my most important task is to promote civil and economic freedoms. More freedom for everyone: this has always been and will remain my goal.

I'm surprised to hear idle speculations on the subject of whether the Russian people need freedom at all, or whether they are ready for freedom. Some say that perhaps we have a special national character and we value order, stability and predictability above freedom. Certainly, national identity always affects all public institutions, and that is also true of our country. But it is absolutely unjust and simply humiliating to consider Russia a nation incapable of being free, a nation that does not deserve freedom. On the contrary, the thought of slavery, the subordination of one’s will to that of another is unbearable for our nation. The unshakable spirit of national freedom and courage to protect our own independence is at the root of the most heroic pages of our history and our greatest achievements, all the glorious military victories, Russian intelligence and the Russian character, which united dozens of different peoples into a single nation.

Thus, everybody needs freedom – that is a given. At the same time, any juxtaposition of freedom and order, freedom and prosperity, or freedom and justice is absolutely wrong. I think that we can judge the degree of freedom in society by the opportunities each individual has to do what he or she wants within the bounds of the law and with respect for the freedom of others.

I would like to quote the words addressed to future Emperor Alexander II by his tutor, Vasily Zhukovsky, and which I consider to be absolutely right. He said: “You must love freedom... Freedom and order are the same thing.”

It is clear that chaos, violence and poverty make people unfree, demean them and threaten their very lives. Man strives for prosperity because, apart from a high standard of living, it gives him freedom. It gives him the opportunity to choose where to live and work, to stay healthy, to feel secure and to help others. People strive for justice so that they can defend their freedom and remain independent from unforeseen circumstances and arbitrary decisions of those who are stronger. Conversely, poverty, underdevelopment, corruption and low life expectancy are the main enemies of our freedom.

Therefore, I consider it a great achievement that we have protected the Russian people from the first wave of the crisis and prevented widespread poverty. We are continuing to create the conditions for improving the lives of tens of millions of families during this difficult period of the global recession. Our economy has been growing at a good pace, and this is the main resource that will help us achieve our social objectives.

I would like to remind you that this year we have the lowest inflation rate in modern Russian history: 4% in the past 12 months. Just think about it: this is a very good figure. Last year inflation exceeded 6%, and our goal is a steady decline in inflation from one year to the next. The unemployment rate in the first quarter of this year is about 6.5%, which is what it was four years ago, before the start of the global economic crisis. We have also fully restored the pre-crisis level of production of goods and services, while the average growth rate of the Russian economy has stabilized at around 4%. This is a very decent rate among major economies.

The official poverty rate in the last two years has been the lowest in the history of modern Russia. But let’s be frank – that’s what we have gathered here for – first, the number of families living below the poverty line is still too high. Second, there are regions where poverty levels are much higher than the national average. And third, the people who fall into this category of low-income families are generally those who deserve it the least: families with children. Often their poverty is exacerbated with the birth of each subsequent child. According to experts, the risk of poverty in an intact family with two children is about 50%, whereas in a family with three or more children it is about 70%. Of course, this situation is absolutely unacceptable and we must reverse it. The solution to all three problems must become one of top priorities for the future Government.

A great deal has been done in recent years to prevent poverty among older people. Today, in all regions of the country, they receive an income that is above the subsistence minimum, and the average income of pensioners is over 40% of the average wage in most parts of the country. Let us admit openly that just a few years ago we could only have dreamed about this. Yet by today’s standards, it still isn’t enough; people always look to the future and very few look back at the past. Franklin D. Roosevelt said once that “the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

In the coming months we must determine our policies on some crucial issues, such as how our pension system should develop; what role will state pensions play in the future, whether it will be a form of welfare benefits or insurance against loss of income; what financial instruments should be available to all working-age individuals to help them with long-term savings; how to encourage employers to develop voluntary pension insurance schemes for their employees; and finally, how to create the conditions for active longevity? All these are difficult questions, and we must work together to provide answers to them following a broad public and professional debate.

We have found the resources recently to begin to significantly increase the incomes of those professionals on whom our lives and our future depend the most: doctors and teachers. If they are poor, then society is also doomed to poverty. It is difficult to demand professionalism and efficiency from the people whose opportunities are limited by humiliating poverty. Overall, the average incomes of doctors and teachers have reached the average for the economy. That is a good result but we must go further, and I have no doubt that this will be done.

We are faced with another, more serious challenge: how to simultaneously tackle poverty and create opportunities to improve the quality of life for the people who already have average-level incomes? We have no right to forget about them either. Those who are already investing their money in the education of their children, in improving their own skills, spending it to obtain better health services, to address their housing issues and build their own businesses, such investment in the quality of life should become cheaper and more accessible. I am talking about expanding opportunities for continuing education, radically increasing the effectiveness of voluntary health and pension insurance, making mortgage cheaper and developing mass-market rental housing, so that at least a third of our citizens have the opportunity to acquire housing using their own savings and taking out mortgage loans, as well as benefiting from state support.

Finally, we are talking about the availability of resources to start one’s own business, the elimination of excessive costs associated with business activities, and we all know that the situation in this area is far from perfect.




Colleagues,

These challenges will be addressed by the modernization of Russia’s economy, its technological upgrade and taking education and science, industry and agriculture to the most advanced level. This is the only chance to improve productivity, and hence the incomes of individuals, companies and the state, to give us all the opportunity to freely develop and fully realize our potential.

Figures show that our efforts to modernize Russia’s economy are bearing their first fruit. Investment in fixed assets has almost recovered from the economic crisis and has been growing in recent months at the rate of over 10% annually. Our core sectors are posting the highest production growth rates (not less than 7% per year), including agriculture – which I will speak about separately – which revealed its potential during the drought in 2009 and in the subsequent period.

Innovation-based and intelligent economy is built by smart, creative and critical-minded people. It is built by free people and it makes people free. That is why we started to promote the work of scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs seeking to develop and implement new technology. Today we have a programme to support young scientists and postgraduate students, and to attract leading international experts to Russian universities. We have created a mechanism for co-financing the creation of laboratories by businesses and universities – the objective we have been working hard to reach over the past years.

Finally, the Skolkovo Innovation Centre project has been making rapid progress. Over 400 Russian companies are registered as its residents. Even if only 10% of them succeed – succeed in innovation – this will give Russia a chance to become one of the global technology leaders again. All of these programmes should be continued and should remain among the top priorities of the state and the Government.

We certainly don’t have a shortage of ideas or intellectual potential, and many of our innovation projects are very successful. In order to achieve an economic breakthrough, our priority should be to create a favourable business climate and competitive environment. Yes, we are working on it, but so far we have had little success. At the basis we must have transparent, clear and fair rules that will replace the micromanagement methods of public administration.

Modern economic policy should create the conditions for economic freedom and development of entrepreneurial initiative. The new Government should proceed from that. Any proposal, any draft regulation must be regarded from this angle.
This will certainly require a change in the attitude of the state and society towards business. Let us admit frankly that it still remains mixed. I would like to name five principles that I believe the state should be guided by in making economic decisions.

First; Business activity and talent for business should be considered a vital social value and nothing else.

Second; State intervention in the economy should be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary and be totally transparent.

Third. The position of law enforcement officers must be impartial with regard to organizations with any form of ownership. They should all be protected equally. The practice of using administrative and security resources to gain an upper hand in business competition should remain in the past forever.

Fourth. Regulation should be competitive at the international level.

Finally, fifth. All parties involved must participate in setting up the rules of the game.

In this context, I would like to emphasize that no reasonable person would deny the need for state regulation in the areas where the market cannot guarantee the security and protection of life and health. But the biggest challenge for businesses and investors is the unpredictable interference of some officials in economic activity and the illegal actions of law enforcement officers, who, as we know, all too often forget that their duty is to protect the rights of citizens, including entrepreneurs.
Based on our understanding of these issues, it is necessary to work in three main directions.

First, it is essential to continue reducing state intervention in the economy. A list of state-controlled companies will be published in a few months, to be followed by a public debate on whether the largest of them should remain under the Government’s control. With regard to all assets for which such feasibility is not proven, the Government should adopt and implement a road map of their privatization in the medium term.

At the same time, state companies will have to stop the takeover of private businesses and to sell off their non-core assets. The feasibility of state investment in the production of any type of goods or services should be publicly justified and discussed. Wherever such investment can be carried out by the private sector, appropriate conditions must be set up. As usual, this will be more effective and simply cheaper.

The same principle should be applied to the functions of state agencies in regulating economic activity. In many cases, I believe it would be appropriate to transfer these functions to the regional or municipal authorities. We have already started this process and it must be taken further, in line with the President’s decisions and the Government’s proposals, and with the consent of the regional authorities of the Russian Federation.

At the same time the process of expanding the regions’ and local authorities’ resource base must be launched. In particular, it would be right to transfer to these levels of government the revenues from the proposed increase in excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, while all the subsidies and subventions from the federal budget to the regions should be used without excessive regulation from the federal authorities. Over the past few years we have expanded the resources available to the regions and municipalities to dispose of independently by about a trillion rubles (this figure has been discussed).

I am confident that these and other measures will give an impetus to the development of many regions, which is vitally important. Vasily Klyuchevsky once wrote a brief statement that remains relevant today: “In Russia, the centre is in the provinces.”

Unfortunately, the current difference in the quality of life between different Russian regions is enormous. If the quality of life in the leading regions is comparable to most developed countries, the regions-outsiders are not too different from underdeveloped countries. This is not normal. The living conditions and opportunities for citizens of a single country cannot and must not differ so much. The leading regions should be encouraged, while the rest need help catching up.

The second direction is to increase the predictability and transparency of government regulation, control and oversight. This is especially true of macroeconomic regulation. Frankly, today we have no need to raise taxes. Other methods and resources can be used to implement all our programmes, and primarily they are related to increasing the efficiency of budgetary expenditure.

In addition, to ensure the predictability of economic policies and improve fiscal discipline it is necessary to put in place a clear fiscal rule that specifies the maximum amount of state deficit and debt, as well as the procedure for the formation and use of the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund. Such a rule will come into force early next year.

I support the idea of launching the road maps this year that are being drawn up as part of the national business initiative. Such joint initiatives of the state and business associations should cover customs administration, construction market regulations, connection to the infrastructure and a number of other very important areas, including the issue of minimizing the number of mandatory reports. What is the point in creating these tons of paper, if they are just gathering dust on the shelves in tax inspections, as we all know? It’s a waste of time and money, and time and money can be used in a much better way.

Finally, we must change law-enforcement practices with regard to businesses. It is essential that all the rules laid down by law are followed in the process of improving criminal legislation. In particular, it is necessary to reduce the time of outstanding convictions on a number of economic offenses, continue to mitigate detention terms for the duration of the investigation, and expand the practice of replacing prison sentences by alternative punishments. I also support the idea of introducing the institution of a special prosecutor or ombudsman who will protect the rights of businessmen.

The third direction is the implementation of plans to create millions of new, highly productive jobs. Many of these plans have already been formulated, while others are just being discussed. I believe that we should fully realize everything that was declared in the previous years. This applies to the development strategy of the space industry, shipbuilding, creating a modern automotive industry, the pharmaceuticals industry, fully realizing the potential of agriculture, as well as the use of our competitive advantages in information technology, logistics and natural resources processing.

I emphasize that the implementation of these plans can only be based on the creation of truly competitive markets. The state must set an example for the introduction of modern competitive principles by launching as quickly as possible a new federal contract system that should also cover the procurement by state-controlled companies. The most important indicator here is the proportion of small and medium-sized companies in the contracts. The future Government should set preferential terms for them.
             

[calmissile]

Great speech!  Does Putin agree with it?

[mendeleyev]

Great speech!  Does Putin agree with it?

Doug, you've tapped into why many Russians were hoping that he would continue for a second term.

However Mr. Putin realized that he was about to lose his grip on Russia and so we'll have the "new old" president come 7 May.

To more fully answer your question, time will tell (and the opposition will tell). If Medvedev as Prime Minister is allowed to continue reforms then the opposition will become weaker and Putin will stick around longer. However I'm still thinking that we won't see VP longer than one more term, if that.
           
Russia is changing.
               

[acctBill]

Mendeleyev since Medvedev is only 47 do you think there is any chance that he will return to the Russian presidency?  Even if Putin were to complete two terms Medvedev would only be 59, still young enough for at least one more term as president.  After all he is far more popular than Putin.  Russians actually like Medvedev, with Putin it's more a case of fear or perhaps acceptance that he is a necessary evil to keep Russia strong, united and to regain their place in the world. 

[mendeleyev]

I don't know. Medvedev lost a lot of legitimacy by acquiescing so easily to Putin back in August 2011 when the decision was made that Putin would return.

I think that Russia has several progressive and pro-democracy potential leaders, such as former finance minister Alexi Kudrin who could possibly mount a future challenge. It will be very interesting to see. If Putin stays too long, Russia will stagnate and everything gained for ordinary Russians will be hard to recover.

[mendeleyev]

Bill,

3 things have come to light today that may signal a further tension or future parting of the ways between the two men whose partnership goes back to their University days.


1- Putin has stepped down as head of United Russia in which he was the leader but not an official member. He nominated Medvedev as his replacement as leader.

2- Putin's own Party, the All Russian Front was supposed to have disbanded after the election and folded into United Russia. Today Putin indicated that the "Front" would remain active thru his next term as President and that delegates would not necessarily be folded into United Russia.

Smart of Putin to keep the 2nd largest party, his own, in his back pocket. Not so smart of Putin to hand the keys over the ruling party to Medvedev...unless you really have a great deal of trust in how he'll continue to operate.

3- The board of trustees of Skolkovo Innovation Center has decided that Medvedev should remain head of the organization. That makes sense, Putin doesn't use a personal computer and has no business overseeing the Russian version of "Silicon Valley" whereas Medvedev is very tech savvy.

However it also leaves Medvedev with easy entree to a generation of liberal minded young voters, a group that Putin wishes didn't exist. OTOH, if Putin wants to get rid of Medvedev at some point, shuttling him off to Skolkovo full time would be an easy fix.

[Belvis]

After all he is far more popular than Putin.  Russians actually like Medvedev, with Putin it's more a case of fear or perhaps acceptance that he is a necessary evil to keep Russia strong, united and to regain their place in the world.

I don't know Russians (my relatives and friends) who would prefer Medvedev over Putin. They both are quite similar in their actions, however Putin is trusted more. People still enjoy the significant improvement in life  associated with Putin's rule, they do not consider him as  a necessary evil but rather as a protector of stability.

[Shadow]

The world view of Russia from the inside and outside is extremely different.
And to counter something in the first post... the protestors have gone away. As usual they remain while they were paid.

So who is mr Udaltsov who is currently proposed as new fighter of freedom ? As usual his past and sympathies before he joined the ranks of Nemtsov are not revealed to the Western press.

Sergey Udaltsov has been part of several communist groups, with Stalinist sympathies, and has tried to get these groups in to the Duma. As this has failed, he has now joined the party of 'Another Russia'. Without doubt he has been recruited to gain sympathy among the elder people, who still vote for the Communist party and leader Zuganov.

Looking at those who 'fight for democracy' you get a very interesting picture if you take the time to investigate their history. People who left their country and returned after making enough money, people convicted for the corruption they claim to fight, people who sympathize with the old Stalinist regime.
One can only wonder how these people are kept together considering their diverse political ideas.

[mendeleyev]

And to counter something in the first post... the protesters have gone away. As usual they remain while they were paid.

Especially true for those who rallied for Putin. They were there as long as they were paid double wages for taking time from work, given free transportation via chartered buses, and fed.

The opposition didn't have any of those advantages. The idea that somehow the "West" rounded up and paid such a diverse group sounds very patriotic to say, but is mythical. That would have been like herding cats. Only the Putin camp had the in-country infrastructure to rally and sustain their paid protesters.

The opposition as it is today is a loose knit and not well organized group, but they are actually growing in numbers especially among the young. The two questions are:

- Do they take it seriously enough to invest the time in showing up and demanding change?

- If they are ever to win the majority they must find a cohesive and central message, otherwise they'll splinter into a thousand separate pieces and lose what they had gained.

People who left their country and returned after making enough money, people convicted for the corruption they claim to fight, people who sympathize with the old Stalinist regime.

The few who had the money and permission from the Kremlin to get their names on the ballot, yes.

Far from the majority of December to March protesters. These folks were far too young.
     
What motivated them was a desire for change, and social media. This was a movement facilitated by emerging technologies: vk, facebook, and blogs.
                     

[Shadow]

Especially true for those who rallied for Putin. They were there as long as they were paid double wages for taking time from work, given free transportation via chartered buses, and fed.

The opposition didn't have any of those advantages. The idea that somehow the "West" rounded up and paid such a diverse group sounds very patriotic to say, but is mythical. That would have been like herding cats. Only the Putin camp had the in-country infrastructure to rally and sustain their paid protesters.

And nobody funded the protests in Tunsia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria.

The opposition as it is today is a loose knit and not well organized group, but they are actually growing in numbers especially among the young. The two questions are:

- Do they take it seriously enough to invest the time in showing up and demanding change?

- If they are ever to win the majority they must find a cohesive and central message, otherwise they'll splinter into a thousand separate pieces and lose what they had gained.


The few who had the money and permission from the Kremlin to get their names on the ballot, yes.

Far from the majority of December to March protesters. These folks were far too young.
     
What motivated them was a desire for change, and social media. This was a movement facilitated by emerging technologies: vk, facebook, and blogs.
                     

So they are recruiting those who do not have full education and are young enough to be influenced by propaganda through social media. Clever.

[mendeleyev]

So they are recruiting those who do not have full education and are young enough to be influenced by propaganda through social media. Clever

Ah, the old "they" routine.
 
The only problem with that theory is that the social media is uniquely Russian generated.
 
I'd say that "they" could as easily be tagged on United Russia.

[mendeleyev]

Shadow, what do you think of this poll from Kommersant?
 
 
Source: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1924105
 

[Shadow]

Ah, the old "they" routine.
 
The only problem with that theory is that the social media is uniquely Russian generated.
 
I'd say that "they" could as easily be tagged on United Russia.

Not a problem at all. There are more than enough native Russians working in intelligence. Finding exactly where something is generated in social media is a pretty complex task.

As pro and con protestors accuse each other of being paid, reality probably is that both are. Similar both sides are using available new media to influence their future support, as Medvedev will surely have realised the importance.

I am cynical enough to know  social media is used widespread to influence those using it. Since Roman times it has been known that by constant repetition an idea can win ground, until is becomes a widely accepted one.

[mendeleyev]

So they are recruiting those who do not have full education and are young enough to be influenced by propaganda through social media. Clever.

Pick the ones from the crowd and identify those who fit your description above. "All of them" or "most of them" won't suffice. Tell us which ones from the crowd.
 
Navalny is in the first photo. An attorney and very smart fellow, although with a very strong nationalistic "Russia is for Russians" agenda.

[mendeleyev]

As pro and con protestors accuse each other of being paid, reality probably is that both are. Similar both sides are using available new media to influence their future support, as Medvedev will surely have realised the importance.

Perhaps we agree. Medvedev is very active on social media while Putin doesn't even use a PC or laptop.

[Belvis]

Especially true for those who rallied for Putin. They were there as long as they were paid double wages for taking time from work, given free transportation via chartered buses, and fed.

These folks were far too young. What motivated them was a desire for change, and social media.                   

I have no doubts that if Putin will have the real situation to call people to raise up he'll find broad support without paying them double wages. And young folks from opposition are not ready to fight, they enjoy the freedom and take their fun in protests. Fortunately, Russians made their choice for evolution vs revolution.

[mendeleyev]

Belvis I agree about evolution versus revolution. The young will get their changes either way.
 
Putin however did need the use of double wages and extra time off to the the crowds in his two pre-election rallies.

[Shadow]

Shadow, what do you think of this poll from Kommersant?
 
 
Source: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1924105

Hold a poll in England or the USA and see how many people consider the reigning (or any other) party a collection of thieves. 

The decline is simple to explain from the times of crisis, and the process of removing corruption and increasing democratic chances. In this way the party is causing its own demise. If anything this is the reason for tension between the two leaders, as Putin may find that Medvedev is too progressive in reforming and fears taking it too far may destabilize the country.
Medvedev on the other hand realizes that in the current world climate any victory of United Russia and the Putin/Medvedev tandem is not seen as legitimate, even if in reality there is no viable alternative, and there for is hoping to find some true opposition.
As United Russia has monopolized the capable leaders in the past, this can not be done without a split in the party and without lowering the percentage of voters.

The reform from a single-party state towards a multi-party democracy is still in progress. Russia did not choose the dualistic system of the USA and Britain, instead opting for the system found in Continental Europe of multiple parties. In the near future a coalition may be unavoidable after elections, and that will be a real test of democracy.

[Shadow]

Belvis I agree about evolution versus revolution. The young will get their changes either way.
 
Putin however did need the use of double wages and extra time off to the the crowds in his two pre-election rallies.

Being on ground you probably can prove that statement. I am sure Mr Putin would ask you to.