Posted on 02/07/2019 10:28:16 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
The residents of two more Siberian cities have now lost the right to elect their mayor in the latest restriction of direct elections in the country.
Kemerovo and Novokuznetsk, two of the largest cities in the Siberian region of Kemerovo, will now have appointed instead of elected mayors, according to new laws signed by the regional governor earlier this week.
Regional lawmakers voted in April 2018 to abolish direct mayoral elections in Russia’s fourth-largest city of Yekaterinburg, leading its popular mayor Yevgeny Roizman to resign in protest. Other major cities that have abolished elections in recent years include Petrozavodsk, Novgorod and Kaliningrad.
(Excerpt) Read more at themoscowtimes.com ...
“The regional governors now have direct control over their territories.”
I see this kind of thing in our future if the far left solidifies its stranglehold over DC.
I see what you did there...
And majority of them tend to be appointed or voted in by sham ‘elections.’
Awesome
Seems like old times, comradeskis.
Open up another bottle of Smernoff.
But how will they maintain control of their territories?
Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Unless you have more information than is in this article (I don’t closely follow Siberian politics), that isn’t the reason at all. The appointment of mayors has moved away from the locality (via elections) to the hands of the regional governors (who ARE elected). This is more than likely because of some discovery of massive corruption.
Yep, they “found ‘corruption’”, therefore centralize. Kinda like what Obama wanted to do with local police.
So anything threatening Saint Vlad Putin's 20+ year grip on oligarchic-mafia power is 'corrupt'
...right....
So anything threatening Saint Vlad Putin's grip is 'corrupt'
...right....
Don’t forget that a few years ago Putin suspended gubernatorial elections for the same reason (Constitutionally/legally, by the way, this isn’t an arbitrary process). It was indeed, temporary, and governors are back to being elected. Government in general has improved by leaps and bounds in Russia during the last 10 years. Municipalities are the final frontier, and many are already on notice.
And if the same thing happened in the USA (which the Tenth Amendment prohibits), you would say . . . what?
Nice concern trolling. Centralization is OK because the RF constitution allows it; I see. Ever read Article 7 of that constitution, which declares Russia to be a “social state”?
I would say that even if the situation was similar, this solution would be untenable in the USA because of being unconstitutional. In the USA, plenary power lies in the states and powers are delegated to the federal government in a limited manner. In the RF, this solution is both time-tested and fully legal, therefore it is in Putin's toolbox and he is entitled to use it.
The RF is not the USA, and doesn't have the same culture, we need to get over that.
Based on what I've been presented, I don't see any reason to believe that this is because "Putin Man Bad".
The Putin-o-phobia I see here is really not much different than the "Orange Man Bad" craze we see among the left.
I don’t excuse the practices of other countries merely because they are not the USA. The cause of liberty is not restricted to our borders. And what with the “old leaven” (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson) of the past entrenched in the RF’s current “social” constitution, allowing old enmity to spring back up is against the best interests of the USA.
BTW, nice use of the leftist “cultural differences/we must respect the cultures of others” canard.
In the USA, us conservatives go on and on about how we are a Republic, and therefore not directly democratic, and as long as we select our leaders according to the Constitution, this is a good thing (electoral college, etc. comes to mind). Why is this ok for us, but not for the Russian people? They overwhelmingly support Putin's leadership, and when Putin finds problems, he deals with them using the tools provided to him under the constitution of the Russian Republic.
Aside from that, Russia is not socialist in any meaningful way, so this reference in their constitution doesn't make them socialist in practice any more than India's constitution does.
That’s a little presumptuous, saying “us conservatives” when you now express views that are anti-conservative, particularly against the Electoral College which insures the states the power to choose the President instead of allowing large population centers in a few large cities to disenfranchise the states in such an election.
When anyone is appointed in a process that goes against the established electoral process, that is not government of the people’s choosing. Same applies to unilateral legislating away of electoral processes.
The phrase “not socialist in any meaningful way” is nebulous. Many concern trolls have claimed the same of Red China.
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.