AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Putin's dubious Democracy.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Obviously there are more today who are decrying the loss of freedoms fleetingly granted to Russians during the 90s, for they are quickly disappearing by the day. This is the latest example of the boot of tyanny being applied to the citizenry there.

Quote:Putin's Dubious 'Democracy'
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Washington Times | June 29, 2006

Russia launched another strike against democracy on June 15, when 14 Duma members, representatives of Russia's five Duma factions, submitted amendments to ban any public political criticism by individuals and/or organizations, including demonstrations against the government.

This comes on the heels of an announcement of further restrictions on foreign oil companies by Russian Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum on June 13. The new restrictions would consolidate Russia's control of its energy and other resources.

Vladimir Putin's government, fortified by massive oil revenues, seems determined to reverse what little democracy Russia achieved since 1991. "The transition has been from a one-party state to a one-pipeline state," noted Ivan Krastev, chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, in Sofia, Bulgaria.
John, couldn't you find something REALLY interesting to read?
This one is boring...
Dying democracy in Russia for which majority of Russians doesn't care ...
Green Wrote:John, couldn't you find something REALLY interesting to read?
This one is boring...
Dying democracy in Russia for which majority of Russians doesn't care ...

Green, I did not put this out for you sake alone. If you find it boring, do not bother to read it. It is we Americans who should be concerned, as many of us had such high hopes for Mother Russia. To witness your response here is even more disappointing. Perhaps Russians are not ready for liberty. Certainly they, including yourself, are not interested. However, that is for you to enjoy.

It is a shame that Russians are so willing to lie down and accept any tyranny. Oh well, you get what you pay for, and believe me, you all will eventually be paying for it as you have for centuries. The worst part is that others throughout the world may also have to pay for your(third person plural) willful neglect.
John, the Duma has 450 members. What the article doesn't say is how many beyond the 14 MPs support this type of legislation. Must I point out that we have had our share of kooks in congress?

The article, brief as it is, is filled with contradictions. It first noted that the 14 MPs came from 5 different political parties, and then spoke of transitioning from "a one-party state to a one-pipeline state". That's completely senseless. The second paragraph addressed restrictions on foreign oil companies, which really doesn't have anything to do with backsliding on democracy. It's simply protectionism, and plenty of democracies practice protectionism.

Based upon the proposals of 14 MPs (the legislature), the article then concludes that "Vladimir Putin's government," (which is the administration) "fortified by massive oil revenues, seems determined to reverse what little democracy Russia achieved since 1991."

It sounds to me as though the people behind this article are simply disgruntled that they or their fellow (foreign) countrymen aren't getting a cut of the oil action.

And that, I suspect, is the root of Green's shoulder shrugging.

-S
John, the list of priorities of a common Russian family with, say, $600 a month (two working parents , two kids) would be:
1. House rent and bills.
2. Food and clothes for children.
3. Food and clothes for the parents.
4. Healthcare.
5.Money for the textbooks for children going to school.
....
....
125. Democracy in Russia.
....
139. Iraqi WMD.
....
154. Image of Russia in America.


If you are able to explain them there is connection between #125 and #1-5, kudos to you.
Because democratically elected Yeltsin with abso-bloody-lutely free speech everywhere failed to do anything positive for this common Russian family. But authoritarian evil Putin gained success.
I think Green is making a good point. Russians don't care so much for democracy,they want a leader PERIOD who will do certain positive things,whether democratic or King.

Whereas we Yanks see democratic rule as a virtue,they do not.

I think it is over rated myself. Democracy in some areas at certain times has proven a good thing,other places,other times NOT.
Iraq is an example,it is a disaster in Iraq right now and will remain a disaster in Iraq until all the evil people have been slaughtered and enough with virture are left standing to run a nation without a Saddam Hussein gluing it togther.

I could say Pakistan is not prepared for democracy,Musharraf had to rescue that place from Bin Laden rule a few years back.

I think the day is looming America will not be prepared for democracy,just live a long life and see. It takes virtue to maintain a democracy and we have a painfully small quotient of it left.

Forms of government are not what makes a great people,look at Britain under Queen Elizabeth or Rome under certain "Caesar's". Britain is now a democracy and not equal to Queen Elizabeth's Britain. Italy is not equal to Rome in her greatness and has never been.
Palladin: sure it takes virtue to run a democracy, but running a dictatorship takes even more virtue. You probably will find a dictator like Ceasar every once in a while that will have that level of virtue, but in general, on average, you can't always be sure of the intentions of the person in office. It's usually better just to play it safe.

Iraq is a different case. Democracy will help them, but the question is, help them do what? Seeing as they are our enemies and all.
Naah...

Where democracy works, it works because Free enterprise is allowed to provide a decent lifestyle for the people. Just because some political administration throws too many obstacles in the way for Free enterprise to work, doesn't imply that the fix is to make more obstacles.
So what is primary - the egg or the chick?
Democracy or Free Enterprise?
Democracy is not needed.

All one needs is a contractually sound culture where an agreement can be relied upon. Most totalitarian or theocratic regimes allow the state to supersede the basic handshake. When sovereignty resides with the monarchy or mullah, then contracts are ultimately compromisable. No country except the U.S. is based on sovereignty residing with the individual. All others put the state above all, and rely on those holding power to be benevolent.

The less restrictive a culture is, the more contracts can be developed. Yet a poorly safe-guarded culture can let violations of contracts happen. A culture which protects the rule of law without allowing apparatchik prerogatives will prosper.
I've thought about this for some time now and have come to the conclusion that the Russians are not our enemies but definately they want to undermine all of our efforts. They still think a week America means a stronger Russia. This thinking will lead them to make so many mistakes the Putin regime will fall eventually.
Perhaps Russia has bought into the static systems concept that has framed so much of the Leftists' philosophy. You know: the only way for the poor to get more prosperous is to take from the rich. Or you cut down a tree and the world has lost that potential forever - not appreciating that trees regrow.

To their collective minds (pun intended), the world is static and they can only rise in the heap if those above them are buried. (Visions of Kruschev pounding his shoe on the tabletop, screaming "Ve vill bury you!")

Truth is that growth overcomes static-ism and is the real power behind cultural prosperity. President Kennedy's shibboleth of "A rising tide lifts all boats." is borne out by history. See http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/599325.html and http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=33885
William: to go back to your earlier point, that soceity's rules should honor the "basic handshake." You can't possibly think that to be true in every case. For instance, what about murder for hire? That's based on a handshake, but I wouldn't want to be living someplace where that was legal. People should not be able to agree to harm other people.
b5b,

The thing is,we have elected governments that are equally as evil as unelected governments. Hitler was elected.

I know my views are only mine,but I believe the Bible and it teaches democracy or not,leaders are in office because God puts them in office.

It is meaningless to me whether I voted for the guy or not. I didn't used to see it this way,but I do now. If America continues with the virtue deficit,we'll have a leader unlike any we can imagine and we'll have voted him or her in.

Evil will abound here as it has in other states if that day arrives. Germans did in 1933,we will as well,it's all based on our level of virtue or evil in the national character. Hitler was for Germany because the Germans were an extremely evil group of people without enough countervailing Divine good to stop the march to the 3rd Reich era.

I personally believe Lenin would have been elected in Russia and I knwo Catsro would and will win any election if they held one. What meaning was democracy?

Khomeini won in Iran,Bin laden would win in almost all Muslims states,where is the virtue of democracy? It is in the people or it isn't anywhere.
Castro would not win now in an open election without the threat of Castro retaliating against those who vote against him. UBL would lose an election in Iraq, Iran and I think Afghanistan too. Yeah Lenin probably would have won.

I believe God selects leaders but he doesn't just put them there. There is a process and he probably works with the voters and their minds to get his people in.
UBl would win in the Muslim world, if for no other reason than a divided opposition. For the record, though, I'm not sure Germany would really be considered a democracy during WWII, though it certainly would have been possible that it would have done what it did even if it had been.

There are democracies and non-democracies that are evil, but democracies are less likely to be evil, because more people are involved in the decision making. This goes along the same principle as free trade, that the economy tends to be better when the means of production are spread out among the population. (I know you don't tend agree with free trade, Palladin, which makes it a little bit harder to convince you.)

According to David Ricardo, bringing in other trading parters can give a country economic benefits, even if that partner doesn't do anything as well as the original country. Extending that principle, a government gains by bringing in other people to the decision making proccess, even if they may not be as knowledgeable as politicians. This isn't a foolproof process, just as free trade hasn't always protected people from famine or other disasters. But it makes it less likely that bad things occur.
WmLambert Wrote:Democracy is not needed.

All one needs is a contractually sound culture where an agreement can be relied upon. Most totalitarian or theocratic regimes allow the state to supersede the basic handshake. When sovereignty resides with the monarchy or mullah, then contracts are ultimately compromisable. No country except the U.S. is based on sovereignty residing with the individual. All others put the state above all, and rely on those holding power to be benevolent.
So the problem is in Russian culture? :roll:
Personally I think people love to suck up to the powers-that-be.
It's their natural instinct, whatever nationality you take.

Quote:The less restrictive a culture is, the more contracts can be developed. Yet a poorly safe-guarded culture can let violations of contracts happen. A culture which protects the rule of law without allowing apparatchik prerogatives will prosper.
Don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery. I was taught on this forum that Americans are the most Christian believers in the world.
How about restrictions in your culture?
Democrats4Bush2005 Wrote:I've thought about this for some time now and have come to the conclusion that the Russians are not our enemies but definately they want to undermine all of our efforts. They still think a week America means a stronger Russia. This thinking will lead them to make so many mistakes the Putin regime will fall eventually.
Putin's regime will be stopped in 2008 with the Presidential elections. No doubt.
Quote:They still think a week America means a stronger Russia.
Yes, that is what many Russians are saying.
Is it some historical paradox? What is good for Russia is bad for America and vice versa.
Green Wrote:Putin's regime will be stopped in 2008 with the Presidential elections. No doubt.

If he does not step down, what then Green?
Quote:
Quote:They still think a week America means a stronger Russia.
Yes, that is what many Russians are saying.
Is it some historical paradox? What is good for Russia is bad for America and vice versa.

It is my contention that what is good for one is also good for the other, not the other way around.
John L Wrote:
Green Wrote:Putin's regime will be stopped in 2008 with the Presidential elections. No doubt.

If he does not step down, what then Green?
Then we will have a smaller and shorter USSR version.
Pages: 1 2