Russian Politics
âGod, I admire Putin, who else in the world has his guts, diligence and sense of whatâs right for his people. Here, I am a Pollyanna... Sure heâs not perfect, but who else would have done as well, dealt the cards he was in 2000?â An anonymous Washington political operator â who alas, flat out refused to be cited by name.
Of House Flies and Cannonade Nuking the âOppositionâ
To the outrage of the Western press and a few dusty Yeltsin-era dissidents, Russians are strikingly indifferent to national politics; they are, however, increasingly sensitive to local issues, and are vitally concerned with international diplomacy and Russiaâs place in the world. When it comes, democracy is likely to develop at a grass-roots level, as people struggle to defend their narrow interests (note, for example, the increasing labour activism in Russian industry.)
To refer to the current Russian political opposition as âsimply patheticâ would be far too kind. The current triumvirate seeking to challenge Putin is comprised of a bizarre neo-fascist â Edouard Limonov of the National Bolshevik Party (little more than an intellectually-inclined bunch of skinheads; nothing obviously Bolshevik about them) and two outright crooks ex-Prime Minister Kasyanov alias Misha 2% (so named for the commissions he reportedly received on Russiaâs foreign debt restructuring deals 1) and Russiaâs answer to the mad Bobby Fischer Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion widely believed to have run a money-laundering/capital-flight operation of industrial proportions in his spare time.
For a nation with the unmatched intellectual depth and great political traditions of Russia to offer nothing better than this crew of losers as an opposition is equivalent toâ¦toâ¦to a great nation like America electing the bunch of arrogant and shallow incompetents who comprise the current Bush administration. It reflects a deeply flawed political process.
Wanted â A True Opposition
T&Bâs unstinting support for President Putin does not extend to the belief that a constructive opposition is not vitally necessary for Russiaâs political maturation. Since 1998, we have been consistently disappointed by the desperate poor quality of this opposition. Of the old bunch, Yavlinsky is totally ineffectual, self-obsessed, and incapable of compromise even with those who would generally share his views. The smartest but most unpopular of them, Anatoly Chubais, now accomplishing the seemingly impossible at RAO-UES, has abandoned the SPS to its sad fate. After his brief shot at power in 1997, Boris Nemtsov has justified his reputation of being a total fool, while Irina Khakamadaâs narcissism cost her whatever popularity she had won. The former flagship of the liberal right SPS, badly discredited by its association with the criminal oligarchs, has deteriorated to the point where it is now, incredibly, seeking to reinvent itself as the party of the disinherited.
Although â from Mssrs. Gref and Kudrin on down there is substantial liberal talent within the economics team of the current Russian administration, they are politically isolated, totally dependent upon support from the top, and lack any independent political base.
The State Quakes â but Why?
The would-be opposition now marching in Moscow, rightly despised by the mass of Russian people, poses not even the most remote threat to Russiaâs stability. Why then must the authorities persist in employing howitzers to crush house flies?
As Westerners, we are genetically programmed to try to understand the âunderlying significanceâ of these events. T&B suspects that, typically, there is no deeper logic the administration does not fear any âsnowballing of a popular protest movement;â instead, the Russian government always has been, and remains, heavy-handed by nature.
It is best understood from the standpoint of the individual senior police functionary: if he overreacts and sends in a small army to break up a church picnic, outraging a flock of journalists, no real harm done. If, on the other hand, he treats it as a bit of a joke, and, God forbid, some violent incident does occur due to his ânegligenceâ, his career is finished.
Thus, the well-honed survival instincts of Russian civil servants, developed as an adaptive mechanism to the Soviet system and which have served them well to this day best explain an absurd overreaction to a trivial challenge.
The recent St. Petersburg Dissidents March was comprised primarily of Muscovites who travelled up in a well-publicised railroad expedition. Running to somewhat more than 1000 demonstrators, it was met by twice as many police; the leaders were briefly detained before they could get more than a couple of blocks.
A subsequent attempt by the same group to demonstrate down Moscowâs Tverskaya was banned by City Hall. While it might be argued that political dissidents should be encouraged to demonstrate somewhere which does not further tangle Moscowâs already-chaotic traffic the official reason given by the authorities was that a Pro-Putin youth group had already been granted a permit to march down the same street at the same time⦠and the traffic be damned (this latter group reportedly failed to show up for its own demonstration.)
Coming to witness the epic Moscow battle first-hand, T&B found no more than 1500 Demonstrators and literally a good ten thousand police: ordinary police, OMON riot police, special forces, plain clothesmen, and trucks full of soldiers⦠for all we know, the submarine forces and strategic bombers were on full alert too. Chystie Prudye was one solid phalanx of cops (and this, with nary a bribe-payer in sight!) Who on earth were they expecting Genghis Khan and his Golden Horde?
It would appear that, within Russia, the Dissenters March is taken seriously by only two factions: the organizers themselves⦠and the Kremlin! Whilst the vast majority of Russians cordially despise the triumvirate, it is a matter of some confusion why the Kremlin persists in treating them as a serious threat.
A recent interview with Gleb Pavlovski â a strategist believed to be close to the Kremlin made for chilling reading. While Pavlovski was rightly critical of the personal qualities of the leaders of this movement, he seemed to miss the point that it was not for him to draw these judgements; if they wished to demonstrate so be it the Russian people would presumably draw their own conclusions. His calls for the pro-Putin Nashi movement to violently disrupt opposition marches are reminiscent of some of the darker hours of European history. Fortunately, to date there has been nary a hint of confrontation Nashi is comprised of a bunch of middle-class kids, post-modern and hip, and certainly not inclined to street fighting. We would hope that Pavlovskiâs irresponsible comments represent his personal view only.
Treating âem like Children
We believe that the Kremlin must share some of the blame for the poverty of the Russian opposition. Mr. Putin has the highest popularity rating of any democratically elected leader on earth about 80% on a bad day, slightly better on a good one. Although the legacy parties of the Right have totally discredited themselves by their alliance with the oligarchs, as well as by their subservience to the Western powers, it is vitally necessary that a new Liberal opposition be allowed to develop outside of the existing power structures.
As a general rule, opposition parties become responsible when they are allowed a share of power, thus being compelled to compromise with the same political realities that the ruling party must face. Kept in perpetual isolation, opposition parties remain infantile, irresponsible, and self-referential a situation uncomfortably reminiscent of the Russian dissident Intelligentsia of the 19th Century.
Washington Yaps â the Caravan Passes
While the fundamental logic of the Russian administration in this matter escapes us, that of the Dissidents is obvious. The two Kâs are fully aware that domestically they stand no chance whatsoever Misha Kasyanov is one of the few men in Russia whom even Putin could not get elected!
Neither do they imagine that they can rally the Russian people to rise up and overthrow the state in a popular uprising that crazy they are not. Instead, the marches are media events clearly aimed at the West in particular, to satisfy Washington that there is an opposition in Russia, and that Kasyanov is its head. By sending in 10,000 riot police to break up a Saturday picnic rather than simply ignoring it and allowing it to become lost in the crowd of shoppers â the Russian government played into their hands most egregiously.
That said, Washingtonâs Eastern âdiplomacyâ is increasingly pathetic; the US will support virtually anyone Marxist, fascist or simply corrupt provided only that are opposed to Putin. The arrogance of the US State Departmentâs claimed right to support Russian opposition parties is breathtaking imagine the outcry were Russia, understandably concerned with the very serious deterioration in the American democratic process under Bush, to announce that it was funding âpro-democracy groupsâ in Floridaâ¦
The basic problem lies in Washingtonâs fundamental misapprehension of how the world views America. That an âauthoritarian regimeâ could be imposed upon the long-suffering Russian people is certainly within the scope of their ideology â but for the American establishment to accept that a relatively nationalist government unfavourable to Atlantic interests could gain the free and enthusiastic support of a Russian populace so deluded as to view Washington not as a potential saviour but as a clear and present threat to their country would require a painful rethink of their own millennialist ideology. Remember, this is the same Bush clique that confidently expected the Iraqis to greet the invading American troops with roses â not with firebombs!
Not usually prone to go in for conspiracy theories, we must acknowledge the obvious Washingtonâs policy is as self-serving as it is clumsy. When Russia was falling apart in the 90s, there was precious little concern for her (very imperfect) democracy. Under Putin, Russia has made fools of the obituary writers with an unprecedented transformation from a mendicant state surviving on hand-outs of food aid to a rising regional power demanding recognition in a multipolar world, this in less than a decade.
While we understand that the Hegemon does not enjoy the competition (who would?) their current position is simply a matter of power politics and should be presented as such; attempts to disguise it as some benevolent defence of Democracy is the sort of blatant hypocrisy which has so savaged the Americanâs credibility in this part of the world.
http://guardian.psj.ru/text/200704231510.htm
âGod, I admire Putin, who else in the world has his guts, diligence and sense of whatâs right for his people. Here, I am a Pollyanna... Sure heâs not perfect, but who else would have done as well, dealt the cards he was in 2000?â An anonymous Washington political operator â who alas, flat out refused to be cited by name.
Of House Flies and Cannonade Nuking the âOppositionâ
To the outrage of the Western press and a few dusty Yeltsin-era dissidents, Russians are strikingly indifferent to national politics; they are, however, increasingly sensitive to local issues, and are vitally concerned with international diplomacy and Russiaâs place in the world. When it comes, democracy is likely to develop at a grass-roots level, as people struggle to defend their narrow interests (note, for example, the increasing labour activism in Russian industry.)
To refer to the current Russian political opposition as âsimply patheticâ would be far too kind. The current triumvirate seeking to challenge Putin is comprised of a bizarre neo-fascist â Edouard Limonov of the National Bolshevik Party (little more than an intellectually-inclined bunch of skinheads; nothing obviously Bolshevik about them) and two outright crooks ex-Prime Minister Kasyanov alias Misha 2% (so named for the commissions he reportedly received on Russiaâs foreign debt restructuring deals 1) and Russiaâs answer to the mad Bobby Fischer Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion widely believed to have run a money-laundering/capital-flight operation of industrial proportions in his spare time.
For a nation with the unmatched intellectual depth and great political traditions of Russia to offer nothing better than this crew of losers as an opposition is equivalent toâ¦toâ¦to a great nation like America electing the bunch of arrogant and shallow incompetents who comprise the current Bush administration. It reflects a deeply flawed political process.
Wanted â A True Opposition
T&Bâs unstinting support for President Putin does not extend to the belief that a constructive opposition is not vitally necessary for Russiaâs political maturation. Since 1998, we have been consistently disappointed by the desperate poor quality of this opposition. Of the old bunch, Yavlinsky is totally ineffectual, self-obsessed, and incapable of compromise even with those who would generally share his views. The smartest but most unpopular of them, Anatoly Chubais, now accomplishing the seemingly impossible at RAO-UES, has abandoned the SPS to its sad fate. After his brief shot at power in 1997, Boris Nemtsov has justified his reputation of being a total fool, while Irina Khakamadaâs narcissism cost her whatever popularity she had won. The former flagship of the liberal right SPS, badly discredited by its association with the criminal oligarchs, has deteriorated to the point where it is now, incredibly, seeking to reinvent itself as the party of the disinherited.
Although â from Mssrs. Gref and Kudrin on down there is substantial liberal talent within the economics team of the current Russian administration, they are politically isolated, totally dependent upon support from the top, and lack any independent political base.
The State Quakes â but Why?
The would-be opposition now marching in Moscow, rightly despised by the mass of Russian people, poses not even the most remote threat to Russiaâs stability. Why then must the authorities persist in employing howitzers to crush house flies?
As Westerners, we are genetically programmed to try to understand the âunderlying significanceâ of these events. T&B suspects that, typically, there is no deeper logic the administration does not fear any âsnowballing of a popular protest movement;â instead, the Russian government always has been, and remains, heavy-handed by nature.
It is best understood from the standpoint of the individual senior police functionary: if he overreacts and sends in a small army to break up a church picnic, outraging a flock of journalists, no real harm done. If, on the other hand, he treats it as a bit of a joke, and, God forbid, some violent incident does occur due to his ânegligenceâ, his career is finished.
Thus, the well-honed survival instincts of Russian civil servants, developed as an adaptive mechanism to the Soviet system and which have served them well to this day best explain an absurd overreaction to a trivial challenge.
The recent St. Petersburg Dissidents March was comprised primarily of Muscovites who travelled up in a well-publicised railroad expedition. Running to somewhat more than 1000 demonstrators, it was met by twice as many police; the leaders were briefly detained before they could get more than a couple of blocks.
A subsequent attempt by the same group to demonstrate down Moscowâs Tverskaya was banned by City Hall. While it might be argued that political dissidents should be encouraged to demonstrate somewhere which does not further tangle Moscowâs already-chaotic traffic the official reason given by the authorities was that a Pro-Putin youth group had already been granted a permit to march down the same street at the same time⦠and the traffic be damned (this latter group reportedly failed to show up for its own demonstration.)
Coming to witness the epic Moscow battle first-hand, T&B found no more than 1500 Demonstrators and literally a good ten thousand police: ordinary police, OMON riot police, special forces, plain clothesmen, and trucks full of soldiers⦠for all we know, the submarine forces and strategic bombers were on full alert too. Chystie Prudye was one solid phalanx of cops (and this, with nary a bribe-payer in sight!) Who on earth were they expecting Genghis Khan and his Golden Horde?
It would appear that, within Russia, the Dissenters March is taken seriously by only two factions: the organizers themselves⦠and the Kremlin! Whilst the vast majority of Russians cordially despise the triumvirate, it is a matter of some confusion why the Kremlin persists in treating them as a serious threat.
A recent interview with Gleb Pavlovski â a strategist believed to be close to the Kremlin made for chilling reading. While Pavlovski was rightly critical of the personal qualities of the leaders of this movement, he seemed to miss the point that it was not for him to draw these judgements; if they wished to demonstrate so be it the Russian people would presumably draw their own conclusions. His calls for the pro-Putin Nashi movement to violently disrupt opposition marches are reminiscent of some of the darker hours of European history. Fortunately, to date there has been nary a hint of confrontation Nashi is comprised of a bunch of middle-class kids, post-modern and hip, and certainly not inclined to street fighting. We would hope that Pavlovskiâs irresponsible comments represent his personal view only.
Treating âem like Children
We believe that the Kremlin must share some of the blame for the poverty of the Russian opposition. Mr. Putin has the highest popularity rating of any democratically elected leader on earth about 80% on a bad day, slightly better on a good one. Although the legacy parties of the Right have totally discredited themselves by their alliance with the oligarchs, as well as by their subservience to the Western powers, it is vitally necessary that a new Liberal opposition be allowed to develop outside of the existing power structures.
As a general rule, opposition parties become responsible when they are allowed a share of power, thus being compelled to compromise with the same political realities that the ruling party must face. Kept in perpetual isolation, opposition parties remain infantile, irresponsible, and self-referential a situation uncomfortably reminiscent of the Russian dissident Intelligentsia of the 19th Century.
Washington Yaps â the Caravan Passes
While the fundamental logic of the Russian administration in this matter escapes us, that of the Dissidents is obvious. The two Kâs are fully aware that domestically they stand no chance whatsoever Misha Kasyanov is one of the few men in Russia whom even Putin could not get elected!
Neither do they imagine that they can rally the Russian people to rise up and overthrow the state in a popular uprising that crazy they are not. Instead, the marches are media events clearly aimed at the West in particular, to satisfy Washington that there is an opposition in Russia, and that Kasyanov is its head. By sending in 10,000 riot police to break up a Saturday picnic rather than simply ignoring it and allowing it to become lost in the crowd of shoppers â the Russian government played into their hands most egregiously.
That said, Washingtonâs Eastern âdiplomacyâ is increasingly pathetic; the US will support virtually anyone Marxist, fascist or simply corrupt provided only that are opposed to Putin. The arrogance of the US State Departmentâs claimed right to support Russian opposition parties is breathtaking imagine the outcry were Russia, understandably concerned with the very serious deterioration in the American democratic process under Bush, to announce that it was funding âpro-democracy groupsâ in Floridaâ¦
The basic problem lies in Washingtonâs fundamental misapprehension of how the world views America. That an âauthoritarian regimeâ could be imposed upon the long-suffering Russian people is certainly within the scope of their ideology â but for the American establishment to accept that a relatively nationalist government unfavourable to Atlantic interests could gain the free and enthusiastic support of a Russian populace so deluded as to view Washington not as a potential saviour but as a clear and present threat to their country would require a painful rethink of their own millennialist ideology. Remember, this is the same Bush clique that confidently expected the Iraqis to greet the invading American troops with roses â not with firebombs!
Not usually prone to go in for conspiracy theories, we must acknowledge the obvious Washingtonâs policy is as self-serving as it is clumsy. When Russia was falling apart in the 90s, there was precious little concern for her (very imperfect) democracy. Under Putin, Russia has made fools of the obituary writers with an unprecedented transformation from a mendicant state surviving on hand-outs of food aid to a rising regional power demanding recognition in a multipolar world, this in less than a decade.
While we understand that the Hegemon does not enjoy the competition (who would?) their current position is simply a matter of power politics and should be presented as such; attempts to disguise it as some benevolent defence of Democracy is the sort of blatant hypocrisy which has so savaged the Americanâs credibility in this part of the world.
http://guardian.psj.ru/text/200704231510.htm
