Future of Russian Government

[deccie]

Having spent a lot of time in Asia and Europe (West and East), with a little time in the Middle East, my simple conclusion is that most people's grandest aspiration for their home country is to have a place which is a better place for their children than it was for them. This, in my experience, is universal. It is the one thing which binds all people from all countries. I have found this true of the Jews in Israel, Muslims in Jordan, Catholics in The Philippines, Muslims in Indonesia, Christians in the US and Germany, and Orthodox in Ukraine. It crosses religious belief and national borders. It is, as I say, universal. Obviously, it does not consider the miniscule percentage of radicals.

Because it is universal - it offers the one small hope we have of finding common ground to build on.

FWIW

- Dan

I agree with your sentiment Dan.

[deccie]

The rising of middle class in Moscow is what gives hope for the future, if it can be repeated in other cities as well. A free economy and healthy government thrives on middle class. People who have money to pay taxes, and can afford some luxuries to keep business floating.

I disagree. Quite often change only comes from those who are denied something by society and who decide to do something about it. The middle class don't want anything to rock the boat or change the status quo.

[Shadow]

The principles of what causes a revolution are quite old.

People have expectations, and people have reality. When the gap between expectation and reality becomes big, it can lead to revolution. As long as the people do not get high expectations, or the reality can match it, there will not be a revolution.

Check this on the Orange revolution. People expected Yushenko to win as a result of him failing to be killed by the attack. In addition Yushenko promised a lot of changes and a more richer, more Western, lifestyle. When the election result took away the hope of the people for these promises, revolution was the result.
After the revolution there is a time span in which the expectations should be met. If in this time there is not a lot of progress, people will turn their back on the revolution. See the current situation as example.

If someone is to organize a new revolution, they should be able to raise expectations beyond the past experiences. They should be able to answer the question why it will work this time, and why the change is needed. As long as the current situation matches the expectations of the people, there is little chance of revolution.

[deccie]

What freedom are you talking about ? Perhaps the freedom to put your opinion in a newspaper without fearing a visit.
Yeltsin was probably the only free chosen leader in the history of Russia. But he did not organize the elections that chose him the first time.

The thing about freedom is the results are not preordained. You also have the "freedom" to fail. For the time being, Russia seems to have failed to embrace full democracy. That does not mean it cannot happen in the future. Ukraine I think offers more hope in the more immediate future.  

[possum]

How can they care about something that they have never experienced?  How can you miss something you have never had?

The upcoming 'election' in March has got to be the biggest insult to the Russian people to date. It's like ordering dinner at Mrs. Knotts Chicken Dinner Restaurant.  You can have chicken or... chicken.

An interesting question:  Medvedyev is the only candidate.  What if nobody voted? 

I wish they would do away with elections all together so that sensible people like myself could ask for political asylum in the civilized world.. because as long as there's an illusion of a democratic state, Russia is never going to be officially recognized as a corrupt dictatorship..

[Shadow]

The thing about freedom is the results are not preordained. You also have the "freedom" to fail. For the time being, Russia seems to have failed to embrace full democracy. That does not mean it cannot happen in the future. Ukraine I think offers more hope in the more immediate future. 

I do not see democracy as the only possible government, especially since there are so many forms of democracy.

Is a system where there are just two parties to choose a democracy ?
Is a system where the head of state is not chosen, but the parliament has 10 different parties a democracy ?
Is a system where the people appoint a district leader and these leaders make national decisions a democracy ?
Is a system where the leaders can appoint a head of military as leader for times of war a democracy ?
Is a system where people vote for all national laws a democracy ?

Why is this urge to have a democracy and let the people believe that they are in charge, when in reality a leader with a small surrounding group makes the decisions, not very different from the non-democratic leadership.

[Misha]

Here is my definition: a democracy is a system whereby the results of elections are not know days, months, or even years in advance.

[Shadow]

Here is my definition: a democracy is a system whereby the results of elections are not know days, months, or even years in advance.

So if the polls indicate a popularity of a leader or party is enough to win the next election that will be in 2 months and he does win it this means that it is not a democracy ?

[Eduard]

I do not see democracy as the only possible government, especially since there are so many forms of democracy.

Is a system where there are just two parties to choose a democracy ?
Is a system where the head of state is not chosen, but the parliament has 10 different parties a democracy ?
Is a system where the people appoint a district leader and these leaders make national decisions a democracy ?
Is a system where the leaders can appoint a head of military as leader for times of war a democracy ?
Is a system where people vote for all national laws a democracy ?

Why is this urge to have a democracy and let the people believe that they are in charge, when in reality a leader with a small surrounding group makes the decisions, not very different from the non-democratic leadership.

you have a point there, Shadow...everything is relative...

[deccie]

I do not see democracy as the only possible government, especially since there are so many forms of democracy.

Is a system where there are just two parties to choose a democracy ?
Is a system where the head of state is not chosen, but the parliament has 10 different parties a democracy ?
Is a system where the people appoint a district leader and these leaders make national decisions a democracy ?
Is a system where the leaders can appoint a head of military as leader for times of war a democracy ?
Is a system where people vote for all national laws a democracy ?

Why is this urge to have a democracy and let the people believe that they are in charge, when in reality a leader with a small surrounding group makes the decisions, not very different from the non-democratic leadership.

I think all of those you have listed are democracies - so long as the military do not manipulate the situation to stay in power - (choice 4).
I am personally not so fussed about the head of state and I do see an argument to NOT make the head of state a political appointment. The left and right in western countries  have grown closer in recent years in a  primarlily because that middle class you talk about does not like too much change.

Until 4-5 years ago Australia was a good example. We tended to vote opposite ways in state elections and in the federal upper and lower houses. The results were qute centrist governments that were forced to negotiate to pass legislation.  The reason - we didn't want government too have too much power to change things. That changed with the previous federal government's last term. (because the left leaning opposition made a disastrous choice for leader)  As a result they (the government) passed more extreme legislation and we tossed them out in the last election. I'd rather that system to what italy has.
Another thing in recent years has been governmentsstay in power not because people like them, but because the opposition is perceived as much, much worse. That has happened a lot at the state level.

[Misha]

So if the polls indicate a popularity of a leader or party is enough to win the next election that will be in 2 months and he does win it this means that it is not a democracy ?

No, because polls are polls. They are an indication of who voters are thinking of voting for and not who they vote for. Also, in a democracy, a voter can change their mind! They may think that a candidate is wonderful and if they discover otherwise they can vote for another candidate. There is a classic case of this: Truman versus Dewey in the 1940s. The New York Times had declared “Thomas E. Dewey’s Election as President is a Foregone Conclusion.” You even have the classic photo from the period where Truman is holding a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune, with a headline that reads, “Dewey Defeats Truman.” The journalists had relied on the polls and were convinced Dewey would win. Because America was a democracy, Truman won the presidency in spite of what the polls were saying.

[Misha]

you have a point there, Shadow...everything is relative...

The Economist has a nice piece that examines what they call "Whataboutism" (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10598774&CFID=7273021&CFTOKEN=ec9859c9b9ee04a3-E9F81DFC-B27C-BB00-012B5AC4FACACDB4). The classic propaganda tool for deflecting criticism away from the Soviet Union was to find the faults in other countries. If the Soviet were criticized for their persecution of dissidents, the Soviet would say "what about the [fill in the blank]."

[possum]

Be careful what you say about Russia!!! When I said almost the same thing when I first joined this forum - that I hate the corruption in Russia and can't quite understand why would a person choose to live in Russia (other than beautiful RW) if they can live in a western, more civilised society I was attacked like a heretic during the inquisition time!
Some people here believe that bribes are a form of taxation! and that it's OK!

IMO corruption is not the biggest problem the country is facing right now, it's the oil-and-gas mafia being at the helm.. Unless they are sequestered from the highest levels of government, we're not going to see any real improvement in the public sector..

[deccie]

The Economist has a nice piece that examines what they call "Whataboutism" (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10598774&CFID=7273021&CFTOKEN=ec9859c9b9ee04a3-E9F81DFC-B27C-BB00-012B5AC4FACACDB4). The classic propaganda tool for deflecting criticism away from the Soviet Union was to find the faults in other countries. If the Soviet were criticized for their persecution of dissidents, the Soviet would say "what about the [fill in the blank]."

Putin's line to GWB at the G8 summit in St Petersburg about Iraq was a classic...

[BC]

I think we must remember that changes take time. I live in a country where the political system evolved over thousands of years.

Who are we to complain about a political system that is still developing in barely double digits of years.

As long as progress and tangible improvement, however small is felt by FSU countries the populace will support it.

Lets let them work it out.  Certainly here we can only provide external critique with no effect.

Believe me they are too smart to accept certian forms of democracy carte blanche and have the best possibility to prevent what ails other forms.  They are indeed learning and taking the best while weeding out the worst aspects.

[deccie]

IMO corruption is not the biggest problem the country is facing right now, it's the oil-and-gas mafia being at the helm.. Unless they are sequestered from the highest levels of government, we're not going to see any real improvement in the public sector..

The problem with corruption in Russia though is it pervades so much of that society. From the police to government officals at all levles.. That pervasiveness and it's acceptance by many becomes very difficult to fight.

[possum]

The problem with corruption in Russia though is it pervades so much of that society. From the police to government officals at all levles.. That pervasiveness and it's acceptance by many becomes very difficult to fight.

Public acceptance is one thing, but when we have a government program aimed at fighting corruption and it's not working, who do you think is responsible?. Can't be the people because they have no say in how the country is run..

[BC]

Public acceptance is one thing, but when we have a government program aimed at fighting corruption and it's not working, who do you think is responsible?. Can't be the people because they have no say in how the country is run..

The US suffered through womens rights, racial equality and even corruption for many many years and it's not yet over.

Are stones being thrown justly?

[deccie]

Public acceptance is one thing, but when we have a government program aimed at fighting corruption and it's not working, who do you think is responsible?. Can't be the people because they have no say in how the country is run..

I would argue the program IS working because it is not actually supposed to achieve it's stated outcome.
it is meant to keep those in power - in power.

Clearly corruption at higher levels of government helps corruption at lower levels to exist.
However it is the corruption at the lower levels most people see and deal with on a day to day basis.

The anti corruption campaigns serve another  purpose too. When an underling needs to be removed for whatever reason, if they have sufficient "dirt" on him then the removal itself can be a publicity stunt showing what the officials are "doing" against corruption.

[Misha]

The US suffered through womens rights, racial equality and even corruption for many many years and it's not yet over.

Are stones being thrown justly?

At least you CAN throw stones in the United States. Most of the candidates running for the democrats would likely have been arrested by now if the United States had Russia's law on "extremism" that can arrest individuals for basically making fun of Putin and being too critical of the President. Remember, a journalist is now being investigated because he used a few words that play on Putin's name: i.e. a "Puting" a meeting of Putin supporters and another that I cannot remember.

[timothe]

I think we must remember that changes take time. I live in a country where the political system evolved over thousands of years.

Who are we to complain about a political system that is still developing in barely double digits of years.

As long as progress and tangible improvement, however small is felt by FSU countries the populace will support it.

Lets let them work it out.  Certainly here we can only provide external critique with no effect.

Believe me they are too smart to accept certian forms of democracy carte blanche and have the best possibility to prevent what ails other forms.  They are indeed learning and taking the best while weeding out the worst aspects.

I can't believe I agree with you, BC, but you are exactly right.  Mother Russia needs to go through the pains it must go through to evolve into the best government it can be.  It's easy to sit on the outside and complain about the problems of somebody else's government, but ultimately, the Russian people will decide how they wish to be ruled. 

The USA had to go through almost 200 years of various aches and pains to get where we are now.  Our ancestors abused blacks, children, women, and men in the workplace for 100 years + until the people rose up and formed labor unions.  Much of the country was lawless well into the 20th century in that there were places in the US where there was more chaos than law.  (think Chicago during prohibition, for example) 

However, I believe a good foundation of principles is the key to a successful government.  Again, I believe the US Constitution is the finest form of governance in the history of the world and it has allowed the USA to become a leader in the world.  Specifically, it is the balance of power between the three branches of government coupled with the acknowledge that each individual is entitled to certain rights under the Constitution.

The Russian people need to figure out whether they want individual rights and freedoms and the responsibilities that go with them.  Generations of Russians have not been held personally accountable for their own success.  Other Russians may not be able to grasp freedom coupled with personal responsibility.  The younger generation and generations to come may desire personal freedoms more, which will eventually bring about the changes in government.
   

[timothe]

It is easy to "perceive" something as a good job when all the television stations sing your praises 24/7. Also, in spite of a more "government controlled society" the state is accomplishing less in many ways. If we look at murder rates, they actually went up under Putin and corruption has gotten worse, though more centralized. Again, you have to remember that under Yeltsin, the price for a gallon of dropped down to $8 a barrel. Now it is closer to $100. The "new middle class" you cite is a mainly a consequence of rising oil prices as opposed to Putin's government controlled society.

$8 oil or $100 has practically nothing to do with Yeltsin or anything else Russian.  The rising middle classes throughout the world, but specifically in China and India has created a tremendous increase in demand for oil worldwide.  (and food, too) 

Conspiracy theorists would say that the oil barons are controlling the price by pumping less than the demand, but the argument doesn't make any sense.  Oil companies make more money if they pump out 20 millions gallons of oil at $70 per barrel than they would if they pumped out 10 million gallons at $100 per barrel.  Yes, there is a cost for exploration but that cost is covered in very short order once a new source has been discovered and drilled. 

[Misha]

$8 oil or $100 has practically nothing to do with Yeltsin or anything else Russian. 

Sorry Timothe, but it does. Russia's main exports are oil, gas and a handful of other raw materials (revenue from oil and gas account for something like one half of the Russian's state revenue IIRC, perhaps even a bit more). Much of the new "middle class" are in effect government works benefiting of the largesse of the state that is now awash in oil money. If oil prices were to drop, then the state would have less money, and a lot of the new "middle class" would quickly evaporate. Simple economics.

[55North]

The principles of what causes a revolution are quite old.

People have expectations, and people have reality. When the gap between expectation and reality becomes big, it can lead to revolution. As long as the people do not get high expectations, or the reality can match it, there will not be a revolution.

Check this on the Orange revolution. People expected Yushenko to win as a result of him failing to be killed by the attack. In addition Yushenko promised a lot of changes and a more richer, more Western, lifestyle. When the election result took away the hope of the people for these promises, revolution was the result.
After the revolution there is a time span in which the expectations should be met. If in this time there is not a lot of progress, people will turn their back on the revolution. See the current situation as example.

The current situation in Ukraine, today.

Tymoshenko is PM for the 2nd time since the Orange Revolution, her party being the only one getting a higher vote than last time.  The bandits of the PoR are reduced to childish games in the VR, even though they only a minority of 2 votes. They are incapable of behaving as a normal opposition as there's no money in it.  They are on the verge of imploding, their brightest, including their moneybags, seeming to be moving towards an alliance with the President's party.  The target, the EU.  A respectable forum to conduct business according to our (the west's) rules.  And polls show a growing popular support for joining the EU.
 
Also, in the last few days, we have seen various authorities move against previously immune corruptors.  The press is relatively free.  People can protest without being beat over the head by the militia.
 
Today, Ukraine joined the WTO.

This is a revolution in progress, now really beginning to pick up speed.  There is clear blue sky between Ukraine and Russia now, and progress, whilst slow, is relentless.  Isn't this the norm for all revolutions?  English, American, French, even Bolshevik.  They all took some years to really bed down.
 
This is the current situation.  Compare with Russia.

http://en.for-ua.com/news/

[Shadow]

The current situation in Ukraine, today.

Tymoshenko is PM for the 2nd time since the Orange Revolution, her party being the only one getting a higher vote than last time. 

In how many years are elections usually held ? How many times did the government fall since the revolution ?