Posted on 09/19/2004 10:39:50 PM PDT by MarMema
MOSCOW Countries react differently to terrorism. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans rallied behind their government of their own free will. After the Madrid train bombings last March, Spaniards ousted theirs. President Vladimir Putin took steps last week that seem to ensure that Russians will do neither.
After modern Russia's worst terrorist act the horrifying seizure of a school that ended with more than 330 hostages dead Putin ordered an overhaul of the political system, stripping Russians of their right to elect their governors and district representatives in Parliament.
Putin's response seemed like a non sequitur, since how the country conducts its elections on the regional level has little, if anything, to do with fighting the terrorism that war in Chechnya has spawned.
But there was a logic to it, at least for Putin and his supporters, and it was one that dashed perhaps decisively hopes here and abroad that Russia had left behind its long, tortured history of authoritarianism when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Democracy, Putin suggested in remarks after the school siege, does not result in stability, but rather instability. It does not unify, but rather divides. The principal threat posed by democracy in Russia today, he made clear on separate occasions in the past two weeks, lies in simmering ethnic and religious tensions along the rim of Russia where ethnically non-Russian people live. That division, he suggested, can be controlled only with an iron hand from above.
In the tragic arc of Russian history, it has always been so even if, in the end, the rigid power of the center has always failed.
A theme of those who accepted Putin's prescription was distrust of the unruliness of electoral will in a country with deep ethnic, social, class and religious divisions.
It was those divisions that the fighters who seized the school terrorists loyal to the Chechen separatist commander Shamil Basayev seemed eager to stoke when they struck in multiethnic North Ossetia.
They seemed well aware that what Russia has failed to do in more than 13 years of post-Soviet politics is develop a sense of national identity that might overcome those divisions. Indeed, in the southern and Asian areas where Russia's Muslim groups live, an ardent religious identification is threatening to take its place.
"We live in conditions of aggravated internal conflicts and interethnic conflicts that before were harshly suppressed by the governing ideology," Putin said the night after the siege in Beslan ended on Sept. 3. In his speech, he lamented the demise of "a huge, great country," the Soviet Union, and rued the forces of disorder that its dissolution unleashed in Russia.
Clifford Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center in Washington, attended a Sept. 7 meeting Putin had with a group of American and European academics and analysts. He summarized Putin's dark view of democracy as "one man, one vote, one war."
"Given that Russia is not a melting pot, but rather a fragmented pot, he does not believe that democracy is the solution," Kupchan said.
In the years since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia's embrace of democracy and Putin's has always been awkward.
Grigory Yavlinsky, one of the country's most prominent liberals, said the public's concept of democracy had been tainted by financial scandals and crises, by the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few well-connected billionaires, by a decade of war in Chechnya, and lately by a wave of terrorist attacks, staged not in symbols of grandeur like skyscrapers and government buildings, but in places chillingly familiar to virtually every Russian: trains, subways, airplanes, a theater and, worst, a school.
"All this period of time was called democracy," Yavlinsky said. "The people looked at it and said, 'If that is democracy, then, thank you very much.' " But he added, angrily: "All these things had nothing in common with democracy."
During his presidency, Putin has shown little enthusiasm for the democratic experience. He has smothered political opponents, wrested control of independent television and manipulated the outcome of regional elections, none more so than the two presidential elections in Chechnya, where loyalists were elected by Sovietlike margins last October and again last month, after credible challengers were struck from the ballots.
Still, until Sept. 13, Putin had never reversed the fundamental democratic right of representation through the ballot a right enshrined in the 1993 constitution's letter and spirit, according to his critics.
Under his proposal, which the Parliament will almost certainly adopt since it is dominated by parties loyal to him, Putin will appoint governors, presidents or other leaders who are now elected in each of the country's 89 regions. Putin's proposals also would eliminate the district elections that choose half of the 450 members of Parliament; instead, they will be selected based on national party lists drafted in Moscow in close consultation with Putin's Kremlin.
What was striking last week was how many Russian elected officials heartily endorsed Putin's plan.
"Elections are often dirty, with money from the shadow economy and criminal groups trying to influence the results," said Valentina Matviyenko, the governor of St. Petersburg, as she fell into line behind a proposal that would deny her much of her electoral legitimacy and political authority. (She was elected last fall and, apparently, knew whereof she spoke.) "All this causes concern and alarm."
Murat Zyazikov, president of the semi-autonomous republic of Ingushetia, who was elected with the Kremlin's help, echoed her opinion, saying elections had turned into "competitions between people with more money, which resulted in tensions in society."
"Western and human values are very close to us, but we have our own way of development," he said. "I think this was done in order to consolidate society."
In other words, it would seem, "the people have spoken" remains a phrase that strikes fear in Russia's ruling elite, which presumes to know better what is better for the country.
"It is soft Stalinism," Yavlinsky said.
He and others have spoken out against Putin's reordering, but they have done so from the margins. A rally organized by Yavlinsky's Yabloko party with posters of Putin as Hitler drew a handful of protesters. A few of the 15 independent members of Parliament voiced objections and then admitted there was little they could do to stop Putin.
The most prominent criticism came from the two men who, arguably, did much to create the system Russia has today, for better or worse.
In twinned essays that appeared Friday in the newsweekly Moskovskiye Novosti, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev, former leaders who pushed Russia's move toward democracy, wrote that the nation should preserve the democratic gains of the last 13 years.
"Strangling freedoms and curtailing democratic rights," Yeltsin wrote, "marks, among other things, the victory of terrorists."
BTTT
Good catch and confirmation of the thread I posted. And so it begins...
BTTT
Can you show me the confirmation in the thread? I am probably overtired.
Developing Putin power grab...
I'm afraid what's left of "democratic" Russia might be disappearing right before our eyes. It's strange to see living history being made, but this time it is that of evil regaining strength. The Russian Bear was not slain, just wounded. The only question is once she is reawakened, will she try to reclaim her cubs?
Another attack inside the US, and we will probably do the same.
When I first read about this, I was alarmed. But then I read more and realized that this was primarily about elections of the "regional" governors. You may not know, but in Russia, you are pardoned for any crimes you may have commmitted once you are elected to regional or central government office. This has led many of the murderous oligarchs running and winning office in Russia. I don't think that limiting the eligibility for these offices is a major threat to democracy in Russia. Now if Putin does something similar for Moscow and St. Petersburg, then that is the time to worry.
I meant the thread that I posted a short time ago, that you responded to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1220958/posts
You wrote: "I have to see this reported elsewhere and more about it. And make some more phone calls. I don't think he can do this."
Apparently, you are now seeing this reported elsewhere. I hope that you are waking up to the threat of what Putin really represents. To be honest, if I was in Russia, now would be the time that I would be thinking about leaving. Later may be too late.
BS..Putin is a coward and Russia is a terrorist supporting government.
We tend to think that Russias "tough resolve" on the Chechyans has something to do with the war on Islamic Fundamentalists, but don't be fooled.
They provide weapons, technology, and sophisicated covert op's to top terror regimes across the world.
The Russians are the reason why the Iranian government built Busheshr and they're the reason why a second plant is going in Iran.
Their nightmare is a pro-US government established by the vastly pro-American populace in Iran, because they will lose mass economic viability. Their lifeline is the terror government in Iran.
They will arm our enemies to the teeth to ultimately destroy our country and claim innoncence when and if it happens.
I don't see anything in this writing about extending his term of office. That is what I was referring to.
When I first read about this, I was alarmed. But then I read more and realized that this was primarily about elections of the "regional" governors.
"Under his proposal, which the Parliament will almost certainly adopt since it is dominated by parties loyal to him, Putin will appoint governors, presidents or other leaders who are now elected in each of the country's 89 regions. Putin's proposals also would eliminate the district elections that choose half of the 450 members of Parliament; instead, they will be selected based on national party lists drafted in Moscow in close consultation with Putin's Kremlin."
To me, this seems to be exactly following the path set by first Kruschev, and then Gorbachev. It's a little bit skewed, perhaps even personal paranoia, but JF'nK's nomination fits right in.
AARGH! I'll just go have another beer. Perhaps our more erudite FReepers can help me out here?
This is just the first step towards tyranny.
Russia opposed to reference of Iran to UN Security Council [Putin's "firm" resolve]
Persian Journal ^ | 9/14/04 | Persian Journal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1215330/posts
Russian Deputy foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said in Moscow on Monday that Russian Federation is opposed to reference of Iran's case to the UN Security Council.
Speaking to Russia's Interfax semi-state news agency, Fedotov added, "We believe it is still too soon to refer the case to the Security Council."
Interfax added in its report, "Iran's nuclear program is one of the major issues on the agenda of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Governors' Board that will convene in Vienna today (Monday)."
Meanwhile, according to reports by Western media, the United States' efforts aimed at winning Europeans' votes in its favor continues even until the IAEA Board of Governors' meeting.
Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov had last week evaluated Iran's current relations with the IAEA, and IAEA's latest report on Iran, both as "positive."
Reflecting on IAEA Chief's report on Iran's nuclear programs, Lavrov said, "Our first impression on the issue is that the general trend of developments is positive, and the ambiguities regarding Iran's nuclear programs are gradually being eliminated as time goes by."
Lavrov also stressed yesterday for the second time over the past two weeks that Russia would continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran in its peaceful nuclear projects.
Russian foreign minister had previously stated that it was his stance during his visit to the occupier Jewish state.
Typical Putin hypocrisy, blasting the West for supposed support of Chechnya while arming the mullahs with WMDs.
Russia's war is not the same as our war, dont be fooled. They are only concerned about Chechnya, and they are and will continue to arm our enemies to the teeth. Same goes for the Chinese who have jumped ship with their war in Uyghur minority. They are using their small wars to solidity power in their countries but at the least time equipping our enemies to destroy us.
The historical reaction of Russians has *always* been to centralize power in the face of a threat. In fact, they tend to gravitate toward centralizing power even when there *isn't* any threat.
But, that said, the question here is whether Putin has got some real reason for grabbing power in order to combat terrorism, or whether he's just grabbing power because he's a megalomaniac, and using the latest terrorist atrocity as an excuse.
It's easy, and obvious, to jump to the latter conclusion - but the fact remains that terrorists are able to operate freely inside Russia, bribe their way onto Russian airliners, get the cooperation of law enforcement, etc. etc. Imagine if you had the Chief of Police of some medium-sized city in Massachusetts cooperating with al-Quaida, and you'd have something analogous to what's going on inside Russia. Putin may think - rightly or wrongly - that the only way he can stop that sort of shenanigans is by obtaining dictatorial powers.
You are more than correct. If they don't get the bribe problem under control then nothing they do is worth anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.