Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iron fist reappears in Russia
seattle times ^ | September 19, 2004 | STEVEN LEE MYERS

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."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: streetpreacher

Putin is the same old KGB Communist he always was...only with his hand out. Do you know how much Russia is STILL spending on an underground, bunkered CITY? Now, why would they do that?


61 posted on 09/20/2004 8:52:06 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

1/3rd of the Russian people still think Lenin and communism were a good thing. Why is everybody so excited ?


62 posted on 09/20/2004 8:55:36 AM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Lalalalalalalalalalala....sand, head, buried....lalalalalala


63 posted on 09/20/2004 8:57:05 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

"Vladimir Putin: Russia indeed works with Iran in many areas, and we will continue to do this. At the same time, like our European colleagues, in France, Germany, Great Britain, and like the U.S.A., we are concerned about questions that arise on the Iran nuclear programme. We were categorically against widening the club of nuclear nations, including the addition of Iran. I want to stress this: we are categorically opposed to this. We hold talks with our Iranian partners, and we will try to achieve certain guarantees from their side, such as agreements, and we believe that this problem can and must be examined by the international community at this stage in the framework of the MAGATE. We will work with our partners on this issue, transparently, actively and persistently. At the same time, our position is that these problems should not lead to an additional unjustified competitive fight for the according markets. The market of nuclear technology used for peaceful means is severely limited. Iran is one of these markets. We need to reach agreements according to which we act by common rules. But all of us, I repeat, are unanimous that we must do everything to prevent the widening of the club of nuclear nations, including the addition of Iran.

>>>

More manure spread by the Communist propagandists...


64 posted on 09/20/2004 8:59:11 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher; Destro; A. Pole; struwwelpeter
In U.S., liberal media = Democrat controlled press In Russia, liberal media = free press

Is that really what you think?

russian liberals

the splendor and misery of the Russian press

"Actually, most of the pressure against journalists in Russia is exerted by two forces, both of which might be called baronial: the industrial barons known as the oligarchs, representing Yel’tsin-era bandit capitalism; and the regional barons–the political machines of governors, presidents of ethnic republics, mayors, and other administrative heads. It is these political machines, as often as not corrupt and linked to criminal circles, that are largely responsible for the violence in the media environment."

"We, who have lived under the Soviets, know a thing or two about strangulation of free speech by the state apparatus; we know what it takes. Currently registered in Russia are 22,181 papers and 12,726 magazines. To keep them in check, the state would have to cancel the appropriate article of the Constitution, the 1990 U.S.S.R. Law on the Press and the 1991 R.F. Law on Mass Media, all of which ban any type of censorship. It would have to build up again the multi-layered censorship structure thatcomprised, under the Soviets, not just Glavlit with all its ubiquitous branches that watched over every scrap of paper with words printed on it, but also the one-party system with a watchful Party bureau at the editorial offices of each paper, magazine, publishing house, radio station, etc."

"I, too, have worked in the media environment since perestroika. I know dozens of journalists well enough, and not one of them has ever complained about their materials being suppressed by some secret state censorship organ or anyone linked to the state apparatus. God knows we have enough problems without this nonsense. Very serious problems—like economic survival."

"The media business lives in Russia, as everywhere else, by the same laws as any other kind of business: Big fish eat little fish. But the closure of any of these publications is accompanied inevitably by loud howls about an onslaught on the freedom of speech, in which the free-speech "tourists" lustily join.

"The greatest ill afflicting freedom of the press in Russia is the fact that there are no independent, self-sustained media outlets left around. All the media have been bought, they cannot exist without huge subsidies, and they do the bidding of their masters."

"If, or rather when, I am kicked out of my present position as editor-in-chief of Moscow News, this will not be due to the totalitarian onslaught on the free press in Russia. In the minds of anyone even remotely familiar with the media situation in Russia, the incident automatically will be chalked up to Russia’s oligarchs’ freedom, and wherewithal, to buy the formerly free press–and mold it to their liking."

You see everything, as the press here does, from an American viewpoint. Russia has not been a country long enough to be free of extreme corruption, which Yeltsin assisted and encouraged. Russia is not America.

It makes far more sense to view the changes in Russia as being about corruption, not tyranny. It is a difficult concept for Americans to understand, when they are not in a country where ordinary tourists are being hit on for all of their cash by local policemen, in the center of Moscow.

Become "remotely familiar" and pay close attention to the lines above - "the closure of any of these publications is accompanied inevitably by loud howls about an onslaught on the freedom of speech, in which the free-speech "tourists" lustily join".

Those loud howls should be very familiar to you as a conservative. I still cannot understand how so many freepers are missing the boat.

65 posted on 09/20/2004 11:12:46 AM PDT by MarMema (next year in constantinople!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
I thought Putin was only interested in being a good Christian? /sarcasm

If Putin is so terrible and pro-islamic, why is Sharon so eager to be close and share technology with him and Russia?

The islamic news is filled with scathing pieces about Sharon "chasing Putin down" to share secrets and technology with him. It is true that Sharon courted Putin, offering help and more, with no strings attached. Even some of our media seemed to be surprised by it.

Is Sharon naive then? Have you ever read what Putin was saying about Arafat, years ago even? Very strong language.

I think rather Sharon and Putin are very close and becoming closer. This puts a large hole in the pro-islamic Putin theory.

66 posted on 09/20/2004 11:25:40 AM PDT by MarMema (next year in constantinople!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; streetpreacher; A. Pole; struwwelpeter
The Western media is being manipulated to slant its reporting from Russia. This is what this British reporter found to be the case while on the scene and upon his return:

By the same token, the BBC and other media sources are putting it about that Russian TV played down the Beslan crisis, while only western channels reported live, the implication being that Putin's Russia remains a highly controlled police state. But this view of the Russian media is precisely the opposite of the impression I gained while watching both CNN and Russian TV over the past week: the Russian channels had far better information and images from Beslan than their western competitors. This harshness towards Putin is perhaps explained by the fact that, in the US, the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled "distinguished Americans" who are its members is a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically support the "war on terror".

67 posted on 09/20/2004 11:39:10 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Russia’s oligarchs’ freedom, and wherewithal, to buy the formerly free press–and mold it to their liking.

Too bad no one can curb the "freedom" of our MSM to spew lies and gavno

Goodness, where is all this freedom of the press heading?


68 posted on 09/20/2004 11:40:04 AM PDT by struwwelpeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; CWOJackson

Ahh, yes the Putin Apologist rides again!!

You still haven't answered CWOJackson's questions. Don't think we've forgot about that.

Now, back to the questions you haven't answered:

So the Russian Orthodox church believes it's fine to prop up the brutal and demented North Korean dictator, a man who slaughters his own people in the thousands, and to give him missile technology to threaten his neighbors with?

So the Russian Orthodox church believes it's alright to provide nuclear technology to the islamic nation of Iran, a rogue state openly threatening a Christian nation?

So the Russian Orthodox church believes it's alright to violate international agreement and illegal sell advances weapons to a nation under sanctions...that Russia publicly agreed to?

I assume by your respone that either the Russian Orthodox church is very liberal in it's attitude towards arming non-Christian dictators or that devotion is subordinate to the state.


69 posted on 09/20/2004 2:30:38 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

No answer to my question about Sharon, I take it. Ok.


70 posted on 09/20/2004 2:42:20 PM PDT by MarMema (next year in constantinople!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
By the way the Russian Orthodox church has a website to which you may be able to send your questions.

I belong to the American Orthodox Church, and I would be very hesitant to speak for the entire church. Much less one I don't belong to.

Do you attend a church, and if so, which one?

71 posted on 09/20/2004 3:03:31 PM PDT by MarMema (next year in constantinople!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Holy cow!

You and me on the same side of an issue?


72 posted on 09/20/2004 3:29:43 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ( Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
The only question is once she is reawakened, will she try to reclaim her cubs?

,,, I don't think so. The Russian economy is doing better than ever and any gains will probably be split between advancing living conditions, maintaining military power and a level of co-operation with like minded States. The breakaway States will possibly align themselves with Poland and western europe. Taking them back would be another Afghanistan for Russia.

73 posted on 09/20/2004 3:47:03 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

Either answer the questions or stop annoying me with your useless pings. You are a Putin apologist, period.


74 posted on 09/20/2004 5:27:57 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

I don't recall us being on a different side of any issues?


75 posted on 09/20/2004 9:54:00 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

He NEEDS to reign in the regional politicians, who are totally corrupt. Also, understand that there are only two regions that really matter in Russia: Moscow and St. Petersburg. The rest of the country is backwards dirt-poor farmland and tundra. This is not the U.S. we are talking about.


76 posted on 09/20/2004 10:12:50 PM PDT by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Sorry, someone with a very similar handle.

Your post #10 was dead on.


77 posted on 09/20/2004 10:17:19 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ( Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

You are so totally wrong. In Russia, the murderous oligarchs bought all of the "media" to further their political ends, which got Yeltsin re-elected back in the 1990s and further entrenched the oligarchs. Putin was the only politician who was powerful enough to take on the oligarchs. He sent Berezovki and Gusinski into exile in the U.K.; Abromovitz followed voluntarily after seeing the writing on the wall (buying the Chelsea soccer team and living the good life). Khodorkovski decided to try his hand at politics, and now is paying the price for his hubris. There is a lot of history that needs to be understood before criticizing Putin.


78 posted on 09/20/2004 10:19:49 PM PDT by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Yeah i think so, i was actually shocked b/c i run the Free Cuba ping here and you're Cuban-American and from earlier post we've agreed on everything.


79 posted on 09/20/2004 10:21:57 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson