Under Mr. Putin’s proposals, which he said required only legislative approval and not constitutional amendments, the governors or leaders of the country’s 89 regions would no longer be elected by popular vote but rather by local legislatures – and only after the president’s nomination. Seats in the lower house of the federal Parliament, or Duma, would be elected entirely on national party slates, eliminating district races across the country that now decide half of Parliament’s composition. In elections last December, those races accounted for all of the independents and liberals now serving in the Duma.
The Moderate Voice has a long roundup of comments and analysis about Putin’s power grab in the wake of the Chechen terrorist attack on the school in Southern Russia. (Link via Obsidian Wings). I find myself agreeing with Ogged that this may be turn out to be the most serious story of the year.
There are any number of reasons why this story is horrible news. I find it historically unlikely that central, unchecked power will improve the lives of the people of Russia. I’m concerned about the precedent, in which a major power declares that security and democracy are incompatable. He’s going to get away with it, and he won’t be the last. I’m concerned about the muscular claims that Putin is making about the right of Russian forces to fight terror (defined solely by Putin) wherever he wants. Cold War II, anyone?
More than anything, I’m concerned about Russian nukes. I’m flabbergasted at the fact that we haven’t done more to take Russian weapons out of commission, (here, too) but at least we’ve had the benefit of Russian cooperation so far in our efforts. I’m very concerned that Putin is about to say to the West, “Thanks, but we’ll handle it from here.” Russia still has the materials to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. What in the world could we do?
{ 33 comments }
Sebastian Holsclaw 09.14.04 at 6:10 pm
Yes, I can’t imagine that a public return to autocracy can be good for Russia. The implementation of the list system in Russia will tend to silence those who have acted as even a slight check on Putin. The most likely short-term outcome will be that many people feel safer because Putin won’t allow the reporting of negative circumstances. This will tend to reinforce the already dangerous Russian level of comfort with authoritarianism. That isn’t likely to be helpful overall.
Randolph Fritz 09.14.04 at 6:18 pm
“I’m concerned about the muscular claims that Putin is making about the right of Russian forces to fight terror (defined solely by Putin) wherever he wants.”
Well, that’s the Bush doctrine.
Why is it surprising?
But, no, it won’t be Cold War II. Putin can’t enforce a Stalinist order on Russia as it stands–ironically, the Communists would probably revolt–, and there’s no-one to prop up the Russian economy. Even oil revenues won’t do it.
Matt 09.14.04 at 6:18 pm
Bad and worrisome… but what to do?
Jim Harrison 09.14.04 at 6:23 pm
The Russian developments aren’t occuring in a vacuum. He’s hardly the only world leader using terrorism as a rationale for increasing his own power by dubious means. And he wasn’t the original practitioner of preventative war.
Back in the 30s, Stalin and Hitler encouraged each other’s extreme behavior in a kind of long distance competition in which death camp matched labor camp, Night of the Long Knives matched show trial. Putin isn’t Stalin and W isn’t Hitler, but just as there was a Hitler-Zeit, there is now a Bush-Zeit—an environment favorable to military adventures, violence, and authoritarianism justified by a chorus of 2nd rate intellectuals.
jdw 09.14.04 at 6:32 pm
_I’m very concerned that Putin is about to say to the West, “Thanks, but we’ll handle it from here.†Russia still has the materials to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. What in the world could we do?_
It’s not like the West has particularly cared before, so what would would we want to do?
An authoritarian Russia is probably more capable of keeping track of their nuclear materials, and even with the nuclear weapons Russia is no longer a superpower, nor Communist — it’s no longer a natural rival of the US. Rather, their interest in fighting Islamic terrorism and American interest in fighting Islamic terrorism coincide.
I seriously doubt the US will offer more than token resistance to Russian authoritarianism, if even that. Aside from the boot finding its familiar spot on Russian faces, there’s not really a downside to dictatorship in Moscow.
Abiola Lapite 09.14.04 at 6:36 pm
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“Aside from the boot finding its familiar spot on Russian face”
Which is precisely where most Russians seem to like it to be …
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBRywYOgWD1ZKzuwkRAgpqAJ9fuL4+3DuduiuT72R6aZ1VVno3vwCfV8YE
L2JY3yEwrHRltE8Lq21c/xs=
=kcX6
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Luc 09.14.04 at 6:42 pm
I find the reasoning that when Russia changes to a democratic system that is more like the Dutch and other European democracies, it should be called “central, unchecked power” and other references to non-democratic systems.
Putins politics and motives in this case are objectionable.
But a party slate system is democratic. And preferred by a lot of Europeans.
Matt 09.14.04 at 6:47 pm
This is, of course, very bad and depressing. As others have said, it’s hard to know what we might reasonably do, if anyting. But, it’s also _quite clearly_ been building for some time, and should surprise no one, even anyone who’s not “looked into Putin’s eyes” face to face. Even worse are some proposals made by some of the United Russia duma members- a return to essentially the soviet propiska (registration) system preventing free movement, further restrictions on foreigners coming to the country, etc. All of this, too, has been building for years. The latest tragidy is as much excuess rather than justification.
Patrick 09.14.04 at 6:53 pm
But a party slate system is democratic. And preferred by a lot of Europeans.
Good point, but I don’t think Putin has anything close to a Western European version of the “party slate” system in mind with these regressive reforms.
Like a certain President on the western side of the Atlantic, Putin is in a world of domestic shit right now. Except Putin’s domestic problems are a couple of degrees of magnitude deeper and more vicious than Bush’s. The solution? Wag the Bear.
Putin has used Chechnya as a successful foil from Day 1 of his administration. Carpet bomb Grozny while consolidating bureaucratic power. Talk tough on terrorism and rattle the saber at Dagestan while heeling the last of the oligarchs. Use Beslan tragedy to push for autocratic measures.
Putin is a mean little weasel; Basayev has survived this long, but I have to think Beslan may well have started the timer ticking away toward his expiration date.
Sebastian Holsclaw 09.14.04 at 7:06 pm
When you change to a specific slate system that will get rid of all your domestic opponents, you can be criticized even if the system operates fine elsewhere.
“I seriously doubt the US will offer more than token resistance to Russian authoritarianism, if even that. Aside from the boot finding its familiar spot on Russian faces, there’s not really a downside to dictatorship in Moscow.”
The US won’t offer more than token resistance because there isn’t much we can do, not because we prefer authoritarianism.
The downside to dictatorships in Moscow is that they tend toward imperialistic in the real sense of the word, as opposed to the watered-down sense that so many Europeans have tried to apply to the US. The Russians have also been known to fight their battles with somewhat less care for civilians than the US.
bob mcmanus 09.14.04 at 7:46 pm
I was discomfited by Putin’s recent remark that Russia remains a nuclear power. I don’t know who that remark was aimed at, but since so many cold warriors miss the good old days of big power competition, I hope there aren’t neocons persuading this macho administration to mess around in Georgia and the Caucusus with an eye on Caspian Sea oil and profitable pipelines.
Would Bush and Cheney covertly sponsor Chechnyan child-killer terrorists? Remember the contras. They are capable of anything.
abb1 09.14.04 at 8:21 pm
Have to agree with Luc: even with the proposed changes their political system still seems more democratic and less rigid than the winner-takes-all two-party system in the US.
John Isbell 09.14.04 at 8:48 pm
I am waiting for the blanket coverage this news will surely get from the mainstream US media.
Ted Barlow 09.14.04 at 8:51 pm
“even with the proposed changes their political system still seems more democratic and less rigid than the winner-takes-all two-party system in the US.”
Oh, come on. When the President appoints the governors, dissolves Congress, and cracks down on the press (not just for boobies and swear words), we’re approaching something like equivalence.
abb1 09.14.04 at 9:29 pm
Ted, he doesn’t dissolve the congress, he merely eliminates its regional component. Proportional representation is certainly more democratic and pluralistic than the two-party political system in the US.
You do have a point with the governors, but Russia has such a huge territory that some fed-region synchronization may not be such a bad idea, just as a practical matter. Besides their ‘gubernias’ are not the same as US states nor were they meant to be.
The press? True, their TV channels are government-run, but I think they still have plenty of independent newspapers. And how good is the US press anyway – why do I have to read the Guardian for US news and commentary?
Sebastian Holsclaw 09.14.04 at 9:51 pm
ARGH!
Katherine 09.14.04 at 9:53 pm
In Putin’s Russia they apparently drug journalists! I am second to no one in my dislike of Bush, but nothing he has done is remotely comparable do this.
As for the U.S. press sucking–“A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. Freedom means nothing but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.”–Albert Camus
Matt 09.14.04 at 10:36 pm
Abb1,
You have no idea what you are talking about. There is essentially no free press in Russia. Nearly every bit of of TV is a device for the kremlin, as are most papers. To speak out is to risk, at the least, one’s job. The only truly independent paper, Novaya Gazetta, is rutinely attacked in various ways, including the physical attack of reporters in my “second home-town” of Ryazan. Elections were rigged all over the country, not just in Chechnya. They were largely a farce in the last Duma elections and will be even more so now. This change to the Duma structure is done _only_ to eleminate the last remaining independent/opposition duma members. It has nothing to do with democracy. Really, you don’t know what you are talking about. This list could go on and on.
Luc 09.14.04 at 10:45 pm
ARGH!
Is it that bad?
But I neither agree with abb1 that Russia is more democratic than the US. As long as you restrict the shenanigans to Texas style redistricting and having the brother of the president decide who is allowed to vote, the US has a far more vibrant democracy than Russia.
abb1 09.15.04 at 8:25 am
matt,
Don’t get me wrong – I agree that it sucks. All I am saying is that it’s not worse than in the US, or, at least, it’s arguable.
Putin is very popular there at the moment. When a couple of years ago Bush was very popular in the US, journalists were losing their jobs for crtitcising him as well.
Putin’s party controls 37% of the Duma. In the US Bush’s party controls over 50% of the US congress in both chambers. And independent/opposition members? What’s that? Did you watch the US congress in 2002? 2003? It’s a similar period in Russia now.
Well, if worst comes to worst I am sure they’ll always have at least two major political parties: one servicing their oil industry and the other one servicing their banking industry. Or something like that. And political corruption will be less visible, it’ll be mostly legalized. So don’t worry.
Sebastian Holsclaw 09.15.04 at 8:53 am
“All I am saying is that it’s not worse than in the US, or, at least, it’s arguable.”
Which shows precisely how connected to reality you are.
It is like claiming “I’m not saying the world is flat, it might be frisbee shaped.”
abb1 09.15.04 at 9:30 am
Sebastian,
this sounds like a purely emotional response. If this is how you feel, it’s fine with me.
However, if you want to make a case, you should present some arguments that support your gut-feeling. Here’s what the Moscow Times writes this week:
Does it sound like their press is less independent than the US press? Not to me.
Matt 09.15.04 at 12:42 pm
Abb1,
I wonder if you read the rest of the article? Most of the papers quoted praised the move, saying things like, “Russia is too immature for democracy” and the like. Izvestia, which had generally towed the party line for some time but lashed out at the latest tragidies, now towes the party line. Why doesn’t MK? Becuase it’s owned by a criminal killer, Boris Berizovski, who is the mortal enemy of Putin. Since he was (stupidly) given asylum in England, he can still oppose Putin. Most others dare not. The situation is vastly worse outside of Moscow. (that, actually, goes for all aspects of life in Russia.) And, if you read a bit more, you’ll see that in reality the kremilin has the near total backing of nearly 400 out of 451 Duma members- the other supposed diversity is a fraud, which will be even easier to maintian now. You don’t understand the situation. When I mentioned your remarks to my Russian wife, her response ws immediate- “what a fool”! I’m no fan of the US system, but it’s idiocy to claim Russia is as democratic as the US.
Des von Bladet 09.15.04 at 1:17 pm
Reporters sans frontières, whose mission in life it is to assess such things, begs to differ. From their annual report on Russia, 2004:
abb1 09.15.04 at 1:34 pm
Matt,
Thanks. when mortal enemy of Putin and criminal killer hiding abroad can publish a newspaper in Moscow, I call it ‘freedom of the press’. Dunno what your point was there, but you’ve sure proven mine.
Now, you say that Putin’s post-Beslan controversial reform being supported by 400 out of 451 Duma members is a farce. I hear you, man.
But consider this: the vote in the US congress to give the president authority for an open-ended ‘war on terror’: 400-something to 1. To 1! One person voted against: Barbara Lee.
The so-called PATRIOT act – very-very controversial bill indeed – passed 96-1 in the Senate (Russ Feingold voted against). In the House: 356-66.
How is it different, Matt? I’ll tell you how it’s different: US government has much better PR, better propaganda machine.
PS. Say hello to your wife.
abb1 09.15.04 at 1:47 pm
Des von Bladet,
RSF:
Russia was ranked 121 for 2002.
abb1 09.15.04 at 1:56 pm
BTW, the RSF reports mostly have to do with physical danger to journalists – not necessarily with freedom of the press, correct? True, several have been murdered in Russia, but by whom? Probably by the private sector, would you agree?
Des von Bladet 09.15.04 at 2:18 pm
The private sector? Post-communist Russia has been something like the Libertoonian promised land where there is no hard and fast boundary between gangsters, private enterprise and the state.
RSF is mostly about physical dangers, certainly, but their headline was that the media were heavily leant on during election season. The highlight in your quote is disingenuous: try
“The United States had a good ranking in the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders announced on 20 October 2003 came only 135th out of 166 countries when its attacks on press freedom in Iraq were measured.”
In other words, the domestic American press is not under undue political pressure.
Putin’s regime shut TV6 and squished NTV. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/11/russia.tv6/). Fig leaves were provided and it’s a safe bet that no one was innocent, but that’s still two independent TV stations in Russia that there now aren’t.
Matt 09.15.04 at 2:36 pm
abb1,
The approximately 400 out of 451 support for Putin in the Duma was the result of the last Duma elections, in Dec. ’03 (I believe). It’s not the direct result of the Belsan events, but rather the exercise of “administrative resources” by the Kremlin. Immagine if every vote in the US were like the vote for the partiot act or the Iraq war. That’s what you have in the Duma now. Clearly, we are not yet that bad.
abb1 09.15.04 at 3:46 pm
Matt,
what is ‘the exercise of “administrative resources‒? Is it different from ‘arm-twisting’ by those ‘whips’ in the US congress? Have you read how a congressman was offered a $100K bribe right on the house floor to vote for the drug bill last year?
Des,
Why do you think the fact that the US government employees routinely murder and intimidate journalists in Iraq – place where the bulk of the US-related news is these days – should be off-limits? Sorry, I don’t see the logic here.
If you think the war as an excuse, Putin is fighting a war too, a civil war, in fact.
Now, I agree with you ‘the Libertoonian promised land’ comment, but Libertarian promised land is the opposite of authoritarianism. In Libertarian promised land you can do (and publish) anything you want if you have enough money. Isn’t the US system pretty much the same? Consider Rev. Moon.
matt 09.15.04 at 4:24 pm
“Administrative resources” includes much more than (usually) happens in the US. It includes beating up reporters that report on your opponents, paying so that no media attention at all is given to them, various sorts of bribes being given to people to vote in the approved ways, compromat of various sorts appearing only about one candidate, one candidate suddenly finding a criminal case being opened against him (both are surely guilty of crimes- everyone of any power in Russia is- but only one gets a cased open against him or her), and so on. Really, it is much worse than in the US. If you’ve not seen it or payed close attention (not to the US media) for some time, you can’t understand it, but it’s certainly the case. Again, I’m not naive about how bad things are in the US, and I’m constantly depressed by it. But, it’s just silly and false to the facts to think its the same as in Russia. I’ll stop here now. Going further would be a waste of all of your time.
Des von Bladet 09.15.04 at 5:13 pm
abb1: Initially I took you to be comparing press freedom in the USA and Russia, which is a silly comparison. If your insistence on moving the goalposts is a tacit acknowledgement of that, then I have no more to say on that. Iraq is many things, but it is not the USA.
Putin is the post-libertoonian backlash of Strong Leadership in Russia. Things have been so bad there that it is still not decisively established that this is an unimprovement, all things considered, which is not to say that Putin doesn’t suck in many ways.
You have yet to make a case that the USA media is anything other than free, but the point that the voices of persons with the most cash are heard most clearly is not one I’m interested in disputing. In the USA publishing unpopular views doesn’t get you (or your staff) kidnapped or your outlets confiscated or shut down. It might make you unpopular, for sure, but that’s the price of unpopularity. If Rev. Moon ever rigged an election to get his son governor of Arizona and hired gangsters to systematically terrorise the staff of NYT and the New Yorker, then we’ll have some equivalence to be talking about.
abb1 09.15.04 at 6:21 pm
Des,
I objected to characterization of Russia as an un-democratic authoritarian state. Freedom of the press was a secondary issue. I absolutely agree with crony capitalism and corruption as main characteristcs of the Russian state. I do agree that Putin is trying to consolidate power there, which may or may not be a bad thing; I simply don’t know.
Do you prefer Russia where a bunch of billionaires control the state (one of them got himself elected a governor, BTW – how do you like that?) or do you prefer Russia where a popular president consolidates the power and crushes the robber barons (assuming that this is his goal)? I don’t know, but at least there is some hope in the second scenario.
As far as democracy goes, Putin sure is very popular there, he sure has a mandate, so I don’t see much of a problem. They’ll still have elections and they can vote for, say, communist president next time if they aren’t happy with the status quo.
Matt,
sure, there is a lot of corruption there. Higher concentration of power may be a way to improve this situation. Or maybe not.
There is a lot of corruption in the US as well, only it’s better institutionalized: bribes are called ‘campaign contributions’; instead of beating a reporter you make a call to his boss and so on. I’ll concede that this is a more civilized way to struggle for power, but the struggle does go on nevertheless, there is no way around it.
Comments on this entry are closed.