RussiaToday

GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Is Russia becoming a true democracy? Judge our election!

Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.

Marzipan6 December 11, 2007, 13:02: Uncle$am wrote, “Those people who live in Europe, especially the ones from the former WP, as Poland, Czech republic, Baltic states continuously claim the were occupated by the SU. Why?”

According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention of 1907, a territory is considered occupied “when it is placed under the authority of a hostile army.” The Baltics were invaded by the Red Army in 1940 when Moscow brought in troops way in excess of the numbers permitted by the Bases Agreement of 1939 with the Baltics, used these troops to overthrow the legitimate governments of those countries, arranged sham elections which conformed to absolutely no provisions of those countries’ constitutions, allowed only Communists to stand in those elections, and in the case of Estonia, announced the “results” (a ridiculous 92.8% in favour of the “bloc of working peoples”) 12 hours before the polls closed!

Thereafter, the newly formed “government” did something it had no right to do under the Estonian constitution – it simply gave away Estonian sovereignty and “asked” for inclusion in the Soviet Union, which Stalin graciously granted, and which Moscow thereafter forcibly maintained by the Soviet military and by NKVD/KGB terror.

And as for whether or not the Red Army was hostile to the Baltics, one need only consider that under its watch, hundreds of thousands of Baltic men, women and children were murdered or deported to Siberian slavery, and all the rest were terrorized into submission, oppressed, and cut off from the rest of the world for as long as Moscow's control lasted.

If this is not occupation, Uncle$am, please do explain to us what is.

I am fully aware that none of this agrees with the fantasies of Soviet-era propaganda, much of which post-Soviet Russia has continued to maintain. But it absolutely matches with any non-Russian historical analysis from anywhere in the world. And even some contemporary Russian historical texts have dropped the pretext, and call the Baltics’ Soviet experience an occupation.

So why do the Baltics claim they were occupied by the Soviet Union, and why does the world agree with them? Because they were.
Marzipan6 December 11, 2007, 12:38: Please be assured, David, that there were no restrictions nor qualifications for Aboriginal Australians to have voted in the recent elections there, apart from the fact that, like all citizens, they needed to have been at least 18 years of age. Perhaps some Aboriginals, who choose to live a nomadic tribal lifestyle in the vast areas of the country that are reserved to facilitate precisely that purpose, and where non-aboriginals cannot even enter apart from having a special permit, may not have been located on election day, and if they were, may not have known what the elections were all about anyway. But all other people, whether Aboriginal nor non-, no matter how remote townships or farming properties they may live in, will have had voting facilities readily available to them.

It seems the issues you are really raising were, are Aboriginals equal in Australian society, and were the Russian elections free and fair? The overwhelming opinion of non-Russian commentators, and even of quite a few Russian commentators, is that the recent Russian elections were not free and fair for reasons they specified, and which I will not reiterate here. As for the Aboriginals, they are equal in law, but often economically and socially disadvantaged in practical fact. This has to do with complex reasons involving major differences between many Western and Aboriginal values, past arrogance and abuses by white Australians, and Aboriginals’ unwillingness and sometimes inability to fit in with modern society.
David December 10, 2007, 01:51: Sevodnya :
I made no comparison between the Aboriginies and thos ethnic groups of Russia, what I was asking relvolves around 'free and fair' when it was strongly pointed out a couple of occassions, at least, about the Australian elections being 'free and fair'. The comparison is 'free and fair' there and free and fair in Russia.
The question posted was about the Aboriginies in Australia and the Native Americans in USA and Canada being able to participate in a national vote and if they are able to participate under what restrictions and qualifications!
Whereas, in the Russian elections ALL were able to vote, both residents and ex-pats.
Whilst we have those stating that the elections in Russia have not been free and fair can it be shown that in the Western countries, USA,Canada, Australia, they have, in their respective parliaments, elected representatives of the true indigenous peoples of those lands? A question I asked a while ago.
On both points I have yet to see and answer.
Just to repeat, my original question was not a comparison between the peoples but that the systems - free and fair.
DaniYah December 8, 2007, 22:59: I would just like to add, that many well known "founders" of the American democracy who claimed to be abolitionists (against slavery of blacks) such as Benjamin Franklin, were in fact, involved in the massacre of the Indians. The policies against the "savages" outlined by Franklin in his biography (the man who brought fire from heaven)included biological and chemical warfare (trading of inoculated blankets and items to the Indians). Those policies, originating from Franklin's "Hellfire Club" continue today, with stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. It is not an issue of "race" or ethnicity, as the world has seen, these destructive policies have been aimed at EVERY human being of every nation, even those they claim to protect. We saw how the US++ bombed huge convoys of their "allies" the Albanian refugees in Kosovo supposedly by mistake in full daylight, how they prevented the UN blue helmets from stopping the mass murders that were happening before their very eyes, and that innocent civilians haven fallen like scorched grass everywhere.
I said that the Russian democracy better be judged by American Indians, on whose societal model the US participatory democracy was developed. However, today a few American Indians have made themselves fat rich while their poor live without. So, who is left to judge democracy? The only thing left is to realize that those groups of personalities reveling in hellfire and and extolling death and destruction of human beings cannot be given credibility by the public anymore.
Now Russia is on the world stage, and it has a stand to take to defend human rights, to preserve the love of life and peace in its territory and worldwide. But, it is blocked partly by the bribes made with Yeltin's olgigarchs and even in the old Communist party, who "stepped on the rake" as an official remarked recently, being tricked into the Cold War, to gather piles of horrendous murder weapons, instead of tools for peace. That was a recipe for dismantlement of the peoples of the USSR. All of the poor pray that that serves as a beautiful lesson, that whosoever deposits destruction will have only destruction to withdraw.
Now that the world crises and non-crises are focusing more and more on "human rights", those opposed to humanity will be greatly ashamed and stripped of all the aura of legitimacy.
Wherever oligarchs can run free and plunder the poor is not a true democracy, because obviously, that is a situation the people has not chosen.
The only thing I can say about democracy is to abolish the claim that it originated with the promoters of the world's holocausts, then we can look for a true standard. We will know when Russia is becoming a true democracy when the basic needs of the poor have been satisfied. At that time, the Russian civilization will be on its feet again, and there will be other topics where freethinking and free-flowing truth will be needed for it to develop further into a truly great nation. thanks again to Sanjay for 12/4 comment
DaniYah December 8, 2007, 20:29: Many Kudos and thanks to Sanjay!!
The massacre of the Native Americans and of the slaves, besides many other poor and oppressed targeted by the haters of mankind, will soon see its reversal!

The idea of "American" participatory democracy itself is a society model taken from the Iroquios tribal nation (who called themselves "Hau de no sau nee" or "People Building a Long House" (in which the chiefs would meet as a congress). It was a confederation of 50 Indian chiefs, this is where the Englishmen got the idea to form 50 United States. The Taino Indians also had a similar system in the island of Quisqueyah (what is now Hispanola- Haiti and Dom. Republic) (see "Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy" by Bruce E. Johansen, among many others)
Whether Russia is becoming a true democracy or not, better ask the American Indians to judge, instead of Roman-esque European Union of Bribery (a failed & fallen empire)or their red-neck slave-driving cousins.
Sanjay December 8, 2007, 06:21: If United Russia nominates Medevedev, it will mean a bad omen. He will do what Putin did after coming to power.

Neo-liberal economic policies will ruin russia.

If Ivanov is nominated, however, there is still some hope. Ivanov however will have to be more media savvy and learn to control his true feelings and be diplomatic.

Zubkov may not be a good choice if Putin does not intend to run in 2012.

Everything is in a state of flux.

Russia will have to rapidly develop a sovereign banking system and reverse the neo-liberal policies of Kudrin at the earliest to make economic growth more inclusive and designed to encourage large families to avoid demographic catastrophy.

If neoliberal policies perpetrated by Kudrin, shipping oil and gas to enemies and depositing dollars/euros earned from sales into the banks of those same enemies continue, then demographic catastrophe may even accelerate.

Anglo-american terrorists are a unique and blessed position. They enjoy not only russia's gas and oil but even the resultant dollar/euro revenues, thanks to Kudrin.

On the other hand, russian infrastructure, roads, rails, airports, telecom, health-care, education, science-technology, military are all starved for funds by Kudrin.

One wonders where all the resident wisdom in Russia has gone.
uncle$am December 7, 2007, 18:44: Those people who live in Europe, ecpecially the ones from the former WP, as Poland, Czech republic, Baltic states continiously claim the were occupated by the SU. Why? Now they really think they are free? hahaha. They went from one occupation to the other. Or do they think their politicians can take any important decision without approval of the US? Besides, the West has already taken their economic power,their financial system just as they have already put their men in their politics. They think because they can travel easily often without visa, eat and drink all the junk, and watch all the garbage on tv, they really are free? In the past you had puppet governments which were under control of Moscow, and now they belong to Washington! [part of this post was removed - RT]
dax December 7, 2007, 18:13: sry for bad eng...

All this mess reminds me my aunts words: "When we where kids, we all wanted to become Stalin". actualy, she ment she will become Stalin when she grows up. And the reason why was that, is that ALL the media, was showing ONLY perfect things about Soviet Union and Stalin. There were almost no way to get real info, about whats going on. All the, so called disidents, were shown sth like trators and threat to entire country. As it seems, same is going on now (well, imo its most likely like this, since im not so politicaly educated).
So becouse of vast majority being blind, its nvm how fair elections were, it probly would have been the same result. (only my thought)
Btw, however it is, its hard to be very calm while russia is threatening its neighbours
Carol December 6, 2007, 18:05: No it is not any where near a true democracy. President Putin refuses to let this happen. He not only needs total power over his people, he still hasn't been told Poland is free. I pray for the day Russians really can be free, when this happens they will shine. CAD
Marzipan6 December 6, 2007, 16:03: The West – Americans particularly – tend to be fairly superficial in their view of the world. Their view of Russia also tends to be rather short-sighted. In 1918, the Bolshevik Revolution was seen through rose-coloured spectacles in much of the West, and as we know, America supported it materially. Many self-styled American and British “intellectuals” supported Stalin right up until the outbreak of the Cold War, and even beyond. Their naiveté and wishful thinking wouldn’t allow them to acknowledge the growing body of evidence of Communist atrocities against their own people throughout the length and breadth of the Soviet Union.

Then came the Cold War, and for decades Soviet Russia was the worst of the worst in popular Western oopinion – and perhaps not without reason. But with the events of 1991, Russia once more temporarily became the darling of the West. Sound analysis and common sense went by the board, and it was considered that in only a matter of just a few years Russia would be just like the West. The West poured material assistance into Russia as if Russia already had a Western mentality – and the aid was swallowed up in a bottomless pit of corruption and mendacity, producing very little of value.

Slowly the West woke up to the fact that Russia was not going to especially change for the better at all, that it would just lurch back into a totalitarian environment in which it felt most comfortable and most at home. And once again, the cycle has turned, and Russia now is the subject of strong Western criticism.

Throughout it all, I don’t believe Russia has essentially changed at all. It remains a passive, fatalistic land of mystical pipe dreams about political and social messiahs, a land of stunted civic values and of no great conviction about either the existence or value of honesty in public life. It prefers mythology to personal responsibility and reliance on strong father figures to preference for taking personal initiative. It remains very vulnerable and pliable to manipulation by its leaders. It is also a beautiful land of many beautiful people who, despite the above, are also warm, talented, and artistically and technically creative. In short, just like its vast landscape, Russia defies neat categorization. But its neighbours have learned, at their very, very great cost, that Russia can also be an extremely dangerous and destructive land, and their policies going forward are rightly based on a grasp of this reality. Moscow would do well if it did not misinterpret other’s eagerness to protect themselves from potential renewed Russian excesses as expressions of hostility to Russia. Reasonable wariness is not hostility, especially given the fact that Russia has not yet repudiated its Soviet era crimes against either its own people or against their neighbours.
Ryan December 6, 2007, 12:25: Before reading this, let me point out that I am not here to say that Russia is a free and democratic nation, or on the other extreme that Putin and his political system is slipping into an authoritarian like state. I am not going to debate who is to blame for the atrocities and wrong-doings that preceded and occurred during the Cold War. I am simply going to share information that I think is important to consider when you evaluate what happened on December 2 and the responses that it is receiving.

"In many areas of civil society -- from
religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties -- the
government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the
people." These were the words of Vice President, Dick Cheney, describing Putin’s Russia over a year ago. It was vividly clear how the West would interpret December’s election for quite some time. The headlines in major Western publications illustrate this from all angles. Here I offer just a sampling of some headlines leading up to, and after the election.

“No Room at the Duma” “Putin Opponents Squeezed” “Russia Poll Vexes EU and Poland” “Exit Russian Democracy”

The list goes on and on. However, one theme seems to transcend all of them. They all iterate the idea that Russia is stumbling down the rather steep slope towards becoming a neo-authoritarian state. Then the row with the OSCE erupted. The rejection of the OSCE was seen as an omission of the democratic process itself in Russia. Not surprisingly the media that seemed to be frothing at the mouth over this “Soviet-style” Russia pounced all over this. Where did Russia go wrong? At what point did they lose their way?

Rewind. “A Victory for Russian Democracy,” this is quite the contrast from the headlines I just listed. The year was 1996, and amongst the West there was a consensus that the young democracy of Russia was on the rise. This New York Times article seemed to sum up the Western opinion of the election in which Yeltsin won for his second term in office. It goes as far to state that, “For the first time in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader. That alone is cause for optimism.” The OSCE’s ruling that this indeed was a fair and free election can vindicate this statement. So perfect, everything is just peachy with Russians freely exercising their democratic rights. Right?

Wrong. Perhaps when writing stories about the present day omission of the OSCE from monitoring the election process it would have been valuable to speak with past representatives of the organization that monitored Russia. Say for example, Michael Meadowcroft. He was only the head of the election mission in 1996. He tells a different story than that which was reported in The New York Times. His findings of the 1996 election were far from ideal for the democratic process. Meadowcroft recounts huge irregularities and accounts of fraud. Ridiculous media coverage favoured Yeltsin for months. He also notes that, even though most of Chechnya had been bombarded into submission by Russian forces under the command of Yeltsin, nearly the entire region managed to reach the polls and vote for him. (To me that seems to bear a striking resemblance to what happened on Sunday.) But where were the cries denouncing it 11 years ago? There were none. Yeltsin seemed to have a pro Western agenda, thus he must be democratic and to speculate otherwise was not ludicrous. This was what Meadowcroft was told by his superiors at the OSCE. He was censored and misconstrued. Thus the election of 1996 was one that was virtually free and fair. Add to this that the CIA used the OSCE as a front for intelligence and to deliver communication equipment to the Kosovo Liberation Army, and you have an organization that clearly holds little if any legitimacy.

Thus, was Russia wrong for denying them? And why is it that when only a few months earlier, when a pro Western member of the EU announced that they would not permit the OSCE to monitor their elections Poland did not receive the same reaction or outcry from the West. Their primary argument was it did not need them, as they were already a democracy.

So why the double standard? President George W. Bush even dialled long distance to Moscow in order to express his discontent with the situation.

I began this post with a quote by Dick Cheney, and I think it is fitting to begin my conclusion with another. He said the following to Nursultan Nazarbayev just days after condemning the situation in Russia, “All Americans are tremendously impressed with the progress that you've made in Kazakhstan in the last 15 years. Kazakhstan has become a good friend and strategic partner of the United States." Is Dick familiar with the situation in Kazakhstan? For if he were, he would probably know that Nazarbayev has ruled autocratically since the days of the Soviet Union. Just recently he has passed legislation allowing him to reside in office as long as he sees fit. His daughter largely controls the media, and also happens to represent the quote end quote opposition to her father. But somehow the US has overlooked all of this. Condoleezza Rice expressed her gratitude for the social and political reforms that Nazarbayev has taken by saying, “Kazakhstan has an unprecedented opportunity to lead Central Asia toward a future of democracy.” Yes this shining star is a true beacon of hope for democracy everywhere. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Kazakhstan loves the idea of foreign investment, it has allied itself with the West, allowed companies such as Exxon Mobil and others to operate freely in its borders, and has possibly the largest unexplored oil reserve in the world. It is not a matter of how free or fair you run your country that will determine how you are perceived by the US and the West, its your ability to cater to their needs. I think that if Russia and primarily Putin were not flexing their geopolitical muscle, you would not see the issue of democracy surface. And chances are we would be seeing headlines not unlike those of 1996.
sam December 6, 2007, 11:28: Since Russia is constantly being judged by its communist past, and in fact the fairness of this election is also being judged by its past,thats why history is constantly being quoted.
I would like to point out that oppression of other ethnic groups by the west ie colonisation is more recent then the USSR and therefore not yet history.
As for the election,well there were no real opposition to United russia.Kasparov had no agenda at all just a mouth. Communist party,well dont think many want them back and are in fact the only party going to the courts over the election.Yablika on the other hand had an agenda that is very pro west and would weaken russia.The Yablika party ran an video as evidence of vote stuffing of ballot boxes.showed a man handing a ballot sheet to a woman which she kept into a box.It was then looped over and over again.So clear that it was a fake.Sad they did not try better.
As for observers,well dont remember any at last USA or UK elections.
In short West says not fair,Moscow says fair.Both have reasons to bend the truth.One way or other, same people that rebuild russia to its old glory won,Dont think many in russia will cry over that.Putin is more popular in russia then any other Leader in any country.The biggest unfairness at this election I see is him giving full backing to United Russia.
Hobbit December 6, 2007, 10:58: I do not find the election have any credibility. The actions of President Putin in the past few months has lost his credibility.

I do not expect nor would I want to see a USA version of democracy in Russia.

I can understand the election reforms trying to shap a system with a few parties representing the people. I can understand the need for all parties to be loyal to the nation. When the system expects all parties loyal to President, it is not a true democracy. The Communists are not a party loyal to the President, but 11 percent of 100 percent is a joke.

A system need checks and balances on the power of those in authority. Sometimes those checks and balance do not function well. However, I see nothing to suggest there are checks and balances on President Putin's power and control.
Donny December 6, 2007, 06:56: It certainly would'nt hurt Russia, If It did become a true Democracy.
Marzipan6 December 6, 2007, 06:02: Dear David

I don’t think I have said anything at all about the US or UK being aggressors or otherwise in the emerging new world order. All I have commented on is the fact that Russia’s 50-year oppression of Eastern Europe had nothing to do with a response to prior Western aggression, but had everything to do with Russia’s own unique little dispositions, and I maintain this absolutely.

Just for the record, I am not at all thrilled with aspects of US and British policies, and will not defend them. However, Russian policies are in a different class of class altogether.