Goodbye Democracy .... long live Kapitalism!

[Couture]

Vladimir Putin announced on Monday that he was ending the system of public elections of governors. Parliment will be elected from a slate of party leaders which he controls. Term limits have become a thing of the past.

Capitalism may be alive and well in Russia, but Liberty is not. Using the threat of terrorism, the Russian citizens have given up their rights to liberty and democracy. Putin is now a dictator.

The good news is that George Bush has looked into Putin's ex-KGB soul and determined that he is a righteous man.

Where is the mainstream news? They were last seen doing carbon dating on a National Guard memo over thirty years old.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I hadn't heard anything about this, but it kind of makes me think again of how much the style of government owes to the underlying culture and proclivities of the people it rules or serves. The Russians have had despotic rulers since they first showed up in history, and it's almost like they've come to accept it and even expect it as the norm.

The US is big on 'exporting' democracy, and we seem to be baffled when a nation turns its back on what we offer. The myth is that any country could be and would be a democracy if they'd only see the light and their rulers would let them, and I think the truth is much more complicated than that. By and large, people like what they're used to.

I won't mention any particular country that starts with an "I" by name, but if they ever have free democratic elections there with no guns in the street in the next 10 years, I'll eat my hat, if I had a hat.

--dr.M.

 

[minsue]

Here ya go, Dr Z. I hadn't heard about it before last night. Brings shudders, no?

Russia Rejects U.S. Criticism of Reform

28 minutes ago

By Raushan Nurshayeva

ASTANA (Reuters) - Russia curtly told the United States to stay out of its business Wednesday after U.S. criticism, echoed by the European Union, of President Vladimir Putin's plans for radical change that will boost Kremlin power.

Putin, citing the need for the reforms to beat terrorism, has said he will nominate regional governors himself in the future and called for changes to the electoral system that will effectively stop the rise of a strong parliamentary opposition.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Reuters, backed liberal criticism in Russia by saying the changes were "pulling back on some of the democratic reforms." He pledged to raise his concerns with the Russian leadership.

But Russia's foreign minister, speaking in Kazakhstan on the sidelines of a meeting of ex-Soviet states that Thursday will discuss a joint approach to fighting terrorism, said Washington had no right to impose its model of democracy on others.

"First of all, the processes that are under way in Russia are our internal affair," Sergei Lavrov said.

"And it is at least strange that, while talking about a certain 'pulling back', as he (Powell) put it, on some of the democratic reforms in the Russian Federation, he tried to assert yet one more time the thought that democracy can only be copied from someone's model," Lavrov said.

"We, for our part, do not comment on the U.S. system of presidential elections, for instance." The United States itself had been forced to take tough and controversial security steps after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. targets, he said.

Powell expressed sympathy for the Kremlin drive against terrorism after this month's Beslan school attack by Chechen rebels in which more than 320 people were killed, half of them children. But he called for "a proper balance" to keep democratic reforms on course.

EU CONCERN

Powell's criticism swiftly found an echo from the 25-nation EU, Russia's biggest single trading partner.

EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten said a resolution to the Chechen conflict lay in "far-sighted, humane and resolute" policies rather than moves limiting democracy.

"I hope they (the solutions) are forthcoming and that the government of the Russian Federation will not conclude that the only answer to terrorism is to increase the power of the Kremlin," Patten told the European Parliament.

The school siege was the climax of a wave of attacks in Russia, apparently by Chechen separatists.

These included the downing of two passenger planes on August 24 in which 90 people died -- confirmed by authorities on Wednesday as being caused by explosions on board. A week later, a suicide bomb attack killed 10 in central Moscow.

Putin has proposed an end to direct election of Russia's regional governors and said candidates should instead be put forward by the president and approved by local assemblies.

He has also called for ending the election of parliamentary deputies in constituencies, a common means for opposition politicians to win seats in the State Duma legislature.

Critics say the changes violate the constitution and that he is exploiting the Beslan bloodshed to roll back democratic gains.

In Prague, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage expressed concern at signs that Moscow had become "a little bit more secretive" about its strategy for fighting terrorism.

But he also backed the Kremlin's view that there were no shades of gray between terrorist groups.

"Terrorism from our point of view and I think from the Russian Federation's point of view -- you cannot pick and choose among terrorist groups. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist," Armitage told reporters.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he had concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites)'s sweeping political changes.

"In effect this is pulling back (on) some of the democratic reforms, as seen by the international community, that have occurred in the past," Powell told Reuters in an interview.

Putin ordered sweeping changes to Russia's political system on Monday to help combat terrorism but drew quick accusations of exploiting this month's bloody school siege in Beslan to increase his power.

The Kremlin leader told top Russian officials he wanted a new election law to limit the number of political parties and to have full control over nominating regional leaders.

"We understand the need to fight against terrorism ... but in an attempt to go after terrorists I think one has to strike a proper balance to make sure that you don't move in a direction that takes you away from the democratic reforms or the democratic process," Powell said, adding Washington would raise the issue with Moscow "in the days ahead."


-Colly

 

[TheEarl]

Couture - to be honest, Putin's been in sole control of Russia for a while, simply because the people have voted him that way. He and his party are so popular that, at the last presidential elections, the opposition didin't even nominate a candidate, leaving his only rival to come from his own party.

The Earl

 

[Couture]

You're not *that* popular if you have to imprison your main rival.

 

[amicus]

Amicus shakes his head and sighs at this thread and wonders what it is about freedom that most people hate so very much.

The horror in the Russian school was perpetrated my Muslims. In Bali and Indonesia, Muslims. In Spain, Muslims. In the United States, Muslims.

Indonesia and the Philippines are undergoing guerilla warfare, by Muslims. Israel is beset on all sides by....Muslims. The Sudan and Nigeria, under siege...by Muslims.

Catholics once ruled the modern world, with an iron hand, with the inquisition. Catholics advised and controlled those who sat on the thrones of Europe. Catholics infected and corrupted South America and much of North America from Mexico down.

It has taken 400 years to combat the plague of Catholicism and expose the obscene underbelly of the beast.

There has been a Holy War declared by the Muslim world, a Jihad, if I recall the name. And no one seems to take them seriously.

As the Crusades sacrificed millions of lives in pursuit of the fictional holy grail, so too will the Muslims spill blood around the world in their cause.

Europe had the opportunity to follow in freedoms footsteps since shortly after the American Revolution. Russia has had but a few short years and Afghanistan and Iraq an even shorter amount of time.

I do not understand those who gloat when human freedom is under assault. I do not and never will.

The Patriot Act, Homeland Security and perhaps the Russian response to terrorism would not be beyond your comprehension if you had even a clue that you are witnessing the early stages of world war three. A global conflict between reason (freedom) and faith (slavery)

You may need to declare your allegiance to one or the other.

amicus

 

[snooper]

... Europe had the opportunity to follow in freedoms footsteps since shortly after the American Revolution. ...

Some countries in Europe have had democratic rule since before the existence of the American Continent was known to them.

ON A WIDER POINT, when will Americans realise that theirs is not the only possible model of a fair and just society?

This is especially true when they demand nation-wide one-person-one-vote elections in countries whose boundaries were arbitrarily drawn in recent times by people who do not live there. There are tribal and cultural differences within the borders of some nations which do not allow political parties to garner votes across the whole population; rather each tribal area has its own set of parties, and the biggest party in the biggest tribe forms the government.

If anyone doubts this, consider Belgium, which was created in 1830 to be a buffer state between Holland and France, a DMZ if you will. There the nation is divided into Francophones, who fear for their economic strength, and Neerlandophones who fear for their cultural superiority. Each major element of the political spectrum (Left, Centre and Right for the sake of argument) has two parties, one in each language. Add Vlaamsblok who are Flemish separatists and you have a totally impossible situation for US style democracy.

Another example is Northern Ireland, where the divide is between two sects of the local religion. As I understand the basic difference between these sects, one believes in trans-substantiation and the other in con-substantiation when bread and wine are transmuted (undetectably by any physical or chemical test) into flesh and blood respectively. On this difference has been hung whether this particular province should be ruled from Dublin (where they believe one thing) or London (where they believe the other). On that basis the two groups have been killing each other for years. Again US style democracy cannot cope, and power-sharing was introduced where a majority of each group separately has to agree a law before it can be passed; this to prevent the larger group voting democratically to kill or drive out the smaller.

Edited for typos

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I was in school I learned that there's a constant tension between people's need for security and their need for freedom, and you can only get one at the expense of the other. Total security leads to lack of all freedom and repression, total freedom leads to an ansence of security and anarchy. All nations stake their claim to some position along this spectrum and the resulting forms of government are the result of a dynamic tension between the two.

The Russians always seem to have been acutely desirous of security and order, and I think their recent history shows why. A relaxing of government controls following the fall of the soviet power structure has produced a form of de facto government that's been called a kleptocracy, run by ruthless gangsters. Putin is moving the country away from freedom in the name of security. I get the feeling that a majority of Russians are willing to make the trade-off.

I wonder if Russia complained about our last election?

---dr.M.

 

[cloudy]

I wonder if Russia complained about our last election?

---dr.M.

Excellent point.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Russia has precious little experience with freedom. 300 years of romanoff rule came on the heels of decades of Muskovite rule, which was began during centruies of domination by the Mongols. A short civil war delivered them into the hands of VI Lenin and then Stalin.

Following Doc's note on freedom vs. security, the fall of Soviet rule brought unprecedented freedom and with it, crime that the old regime would not have tolerated. We should all expect the Russian people to take some time to learn about freedom. It isn't really that hard to believe they will have fits and starts, cautious advances and retreats, until the hammer out the best system for them.

No two societies are exactly alike, not two peoples are exactly alike. Democracy may work for them, or perhaps a socialist parlimentary system is best, or constitutional monarchy or Theocracy or dictatorship. Every nation has to work to find the governmental form that is right for them. If russians are willing to give up some freedom for enhanced security, there is nothing wrong with that.

As far as it goes, we here in america have given up some of our freedoms in the name of enhanced security.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Snooper, Colleen Dr. Mab Cloudy....

I often refer other, non-Lit friends to peruse the posts of this forum and many decline to participate,"Those people are too smart for me..." is often the response I garner.

Some excellent, thoughtful and for the most part non-partisan comments add to the depth and width of the discussion.

When Rome ruled...Pax Romana...it was said that a citizen of Rome could walk any road, anywhere without fear. The power and strength of Rome was such that anyone threatening harm was deterred by the certainty of immediate response...

I suppose that falls in the the 'security' versus freedom aspect brought forth in a prior post.

I am continually amazed at the wealth of information that comes forth...such as the brief history of Belgium as a buffer between France and the North Countries...fascinating and new to me.

The sketch of mother Russia also is interesting and not inaccurate but most informative.

I am sure the same would hold true if one looked closely at the intitial formation of the 13 Colonies on the American Continent.

The impact of the previous commentary is to almost overwhelm one in terms of the difficulty experienced by various peoples anywhere to achieve a consential, of, by, and for the people, style of government.

The words 'micro' and 'macro' came to mind as I read Snoopers comments.

"ON A WIDER POINT, when will Americans realise that theirs is not the only possible model of a fair and just society?"

...was said by Snooper...

...as an aside...I just heard on the news that three Euro Nations have 'voted' to ban smoking entirely within their borders....

Freedom and Security...Security and Freedom....

Muslims and Christians....India has the highest rate of HIV positive individuals in the world.....

the micro and the macro....

I am not sure what the 'world view' of Snooper/colly/Dr. Mab/Cloudy...might be...each separate group an entity unto itself?Belgians isolated into similarities? Irish and Brits isolated into separate but equal? Native Americans still living a nomadic life alongside super highways and skyscrapers? Christians and Muslims living side by side in peace?

Something fundamental and germane is lacking when one views the micro with such intensity that the macro becomes so complex as to be untenable.

Somehow, the vast variety of world cultures came together as English, Irish, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Russians, Swedes, Germans and Poles...(and a hundred more) in a place called America...how on earth, with the emphasis on the micro, as expressed....how on earth could that ever have happened?

But it did happen. And all those disimular cultures are now known as Americans. People who now share a common heritage, a fairly common fundamental 'world view.'

While cultural, historical, ethnic and religious differences are surely of import; on the wider scale of humanity, do we not indeed share more simularities that are universal in nature than the differences we display?

The desire to be free from the control of others, within the mutual association for security. I propose, is one of those fundamental, universal traits innate to the species.

If America were the Rome or Constantinople of the past, or the London or Paris of the 18th Century, or the Berlin or Moscow or Beijing of the 19th and 20th Century, then America would use whatever force necessary to pacify the entire middle east, build a 'great wall' or a Hadrians wall around the whole mess, execute the viable young men, destroy the mosques, ban the practice of Islam, confiscate the oil reserves and impose martial law on the entire region.

Aside from the early expansion to occupy the Continent of North America and a period of 'Big Stick' policy of Theodore Roosevelt, America was largely isolationist and non intervention minded.

With the advent of World War one, the centuries long power equasion in Europe underwent a monumental change. Mainly because that power vacuum was recognized, America intervened in the later stages of the conflict.

Aside from a 'balance of power', much was lost and little gained by the United States. There was no colonization or wealth or spoils of war as an incentive.

World War two was brewing even as the 1920's came to a close. Again, the United States adopted an isolationist policy.

The division of Berlin, the Marshall plan...again, no American colonies, no riches. Korea, a United Nations 'peace action', confronted both Soviet and Chinese power and expansion.

The French in Vietnam, circa 1954...the vacuum left by Japanese occupation, the influence of both the Soviet Union and China.

Israel and the Suez, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, a region that supplied and supplies the entire world with oil products...

The Balkans, Sarajevo, Herzagovenia(sp)...Kuwait, Iraqi missiles into Israel....the first and second Iraqi wars....

******"ON A WIDER POINT, when will Americans realise that theirs is not the only possible model of a fair and just society?"***


There is not any model Americans seek to impose anywhere in the world. It is that basic and fundamental and universal desire of human beings to be live free from the oppression of others.

There is a solid case to be made that there would be little or no American intervention anywhere in the world if our own 'security' as a nation had not been threatened.

On a closing note...there is a huge outcry from much of the world, for someone (America) to intervene in the ongoing genocide on the African Continent. Does any nation have a moral obligation to come to the aid of the African people being decimated by Muslim terrorists?

Someone else can answer that.

My...that was a long winded thingamabob....

amicus the exhausted....

 

[minsue]

On a closing note...there is a huge outcry from much of the world, for someone (America) to intervene in the ongoing genocide on the African Continent. Does any nation have a moral obligation to come to the aid of the African people being decimated by Muslim terrorists?

Someone else can answer that.

Yes. I don't care who they are or where they are, everyone has a moral obligation to aid in any & every way possible. It's part of being human.

 

[snooper]

...
...as an aside...I just heard on the news that three Euro Nations have 'voted' to ban smoking entirely within their borders....
...

I think on closer examination the ban is only in enclosed spaces (i.e. buildings, caves, etc) where people work. In Ireland smoking is also allowed in hotel bedrooms, where the smoker is deemed to be in private space.

No European country could afford to ban smoking; the tax take from tobacco is too large for the economy to cope with the sudden loss of income.