Putin Puts An End To Electoral Politics In Russia

The Sunday September 18 election for the Russian parliament has given Vladimir Putin another pro-Putin parliament (Duma) to routinely rubber-stamp his most ludicrous and repressive legislation. His United Russia party gained a majority (54 percent according to preliminary results). No opposition party crossed the five percent hurdle; instead, the reliable Communist (13 percent), Liberal Democrat (13 percent), and Just Russia Parties (6 percent) will join United Russia in the new Duma. Only sixteen candidates from the so-called small parties gained seats in regional parliaments. In a word: The Duma election was a total wipeout of legislative opposition in Putin’s Russia. This is no big deal in itself because the legislative branch has little power, but the election signaled the end of hope for change through elections in Russia. Palace coups or the streets are the only remaining options of the Russian people.



go to Forbes.com

Russia’s Economic Crisis Threatens Putin’s 2016 Mid-Term Election Schemes

The September 18 Russian parliamentary (Duma) election and the November 8 U.S. elections reinforce the wisdom of Churchill’s famous quip: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” Whether the establishment likes it or not, the U.S. primary campaigns have laid bare tectonic voter dissatisfaction with the status quo. Presumably, the U.S. political system will respond one way or another, perhaps with the election of an outsider. The Russian Duma elections will take place amidst a deep economic crisis according to election rules specifically designed to blunt and conceal voter disaffection. The Putin regime incurs risks with this strategy: It creates an opportunity for a political force that actually addresses the deep concerns of the people. It is virtually impossible for the cautious Putin to plan for every eventuality.

go to Forbes.com

A Vivid and Amusing Eye Witness Account of the February 4 Moscow Demonstrations: A Moment of Fame on VOA

A colleague of Marianna Yarovskaya and me, Gregory Kataev (film and theater director), sent this description of what it was like to be a part of the 100,000 plus Moscow demonstrations of February 4. This letter shows the confusing and quixotic mix of "anti-government forces" that must organize themselves if Russia is to have a return to democracy.

"On Saturday, February 4th, my friends and I went to Bolotnaia Square.  We walked the full length of the demonstration route along Yakimanka Street – from the Oktiabr’skaia metro station to the Udarnik cinema, and on to Bolotnaia Square.

There were A LOT of people there.  Unfortunately, there were also a lot of Communists and Nationalists. My friends and I lost each other as I was carried off by the crowd. As I’m walking, I’m thinking to myself: Here are some good guys – rosy cheeked, stalwart, marching with precision, holding jaunty cute yellow flags; in short, nice guys. They appear to regard me with compassion. And suddenly these nice guys start yelling at the top of their lungs: “Russia for the Russians!” “Russia for the Russians!” I thought, “Well, I'm in trouble.”

It was not easy to get out of there!  To my right, a bearded guy, about 40 years old and a head taller than I (and I'm not that short myself), looks at me and asks: “Why aren’t you chanting?” I reply: “Sore throat.” And immediately I ask myself, “Why did I chicken out?”  Then I say to him, “As a matter of fact, I’m half Jewish.”  He says, “Aaaaaah... And which of your parents is Jewish – mother or father?  Your father is a Jewish man?” I answer: “The Jewish man – is my mother.” He says, “Well then you are Russian. The important thing is that your father is Russian!"  And he bellows out once more: “Russia for the Russians! Russia for the Russians!” And to me again: “Well, you have  done well, brother, coming out to march!”  That is how I became the brother of a Russian Nationalist.

Then, I seized the moment and defected to another column of demonstrators. But things went from bad to worse. Now I was marching with Anarchists (black-and-red flags), also nice guys. We were followed by a huge crowd of Communists with red banners, stars, hammers and sickles, and other such horseradish. In general, Marianna and Paul, one thing was clear: if any of these nice guys comes to power, he will hang people like me from lampposts.

We caught up with the biggest column, a coalition of Democrats, Liberals, People's Freedom Party (Parnas) and Yabloko already in Bolotnaia Square.  My friends and I again lost each other there. I roamed around among different groups of people.  I heard conversations that were reminiscent of the revolution of February 1917!  The only difference was that people were not shooting their Mausers into the sky.*  But it seemed like they might start firing any minute.  So I walked around and talked to people, then finally stopped to rest and climbed onto a huge snow mound where it seemed to be a bit quieter.

To my surprise, I found myself among some American journalists. They did not seem like themselves. They wore valenki (felt boots) or some kind of specially warmed boots and winter coats. Their faces were blue from the cold. It was -22ºC, and even I wore my father's dublenka (sheepskin coat) and ridiculous winter hat for the first time in several years. In short, they looked like engineers from the Russian industrial town of Tula, but certainly not like Americans!

One guy, in his 40s, turned out to be James Brooke, the Voice of America Moscow Bureau Chief. In a nutshell, standing right there in this snowdrift, I said something to him and his microphone, which ended up on Voice of America news in my brief moment of fame as:

“Standing on a pile of snow, Gregory Kataev, a filmmaker, said he was happy to see such a turnout when the temperature was minus 20 degrees.
‘If I want a better Russia, if I want it to be a democratic country,  I have to do something, not only speaking in the kitchen, as we say in Russia,’ he said.”

The atmosphere was like a crowded, chaotic marketplace, but with snow and arctic cold. Bearded, rosy-cheeked men wearing tulups (rural sheepskin coats), members of the Union of Russian People, stood nearby. They stared at us as though we were reptiles, bastard spies, smack dab in the middle of the Russian nation and wanting nothing more than its demise. I strongly felt home-brewed patriotic hospitality in their kind glances – it became clear that it was better not to speak English for more than ten minutes in their earshot.

They started asking us questions.  I kept my VOA interview brief because I wanted to avoid engaging in a more radical form of interaction with these people than discussion. They carried posters reading "Give the power to the Russian people!" and they outnumbered us significantly.

The funny thing is that the Russian version of the VOA report says that I addressed the crowd from the height of the snow mound!  And all I did (besides my short interview) was help the Americans understand a couple of speeches that were broadcast by the powerful loudspeakers. We all stood on the snow mound very far from the stage and it was impossible to get anywhere near it because of the dense crowds. The next day two friends of mine called me to say: "We heard you on the Voice of America! Have you been addressing the people from the top of a snow mound, like Lenin from the roof of his armored car?  Did you get there in the sealed train from Washington?"**

I hope, Marianna and Paul, that you find this account entertaining and enlightening.

* Mauser - the name (the brand) of the hand-gun popular during the First World War, Revolution and Civil War in Russia. The crowd of people shooting in the sky from their Mausers is a typical political-meeting street scene in pre-revolutionary Russia.

** Lenin, Russian Communist and Bolsheviks' leader, was sent by the German secret service from Germany to Russia (in April, 1917) across the First World War frontline in a sealed, protected train-wagon in order to get safely into Russia and complete the Russian revolution—so that Russia would sign a peace treaty on German conditions. Having arrived in Russia, Lenin held his famous “uprising speech” addressing the people on the train-station square from the roof of the armored car (bronevik).

Putin Is In a Box: What the Demonstrators Should Demand

Fifty thousand demonstrators are shouting “Russia without Putin!” as I write this post. Symbolically, they are milling in Bolotnaya Square, the site where the Don Cossack Pugachev was beheaded in 1775, after fighting a two-year war against Catherine the Great.  

Madeline Albright used to tell us that “Saddam is in a box.” He was not, but Putin is. His siloviki (power men) can handle a demonstration of one thousand but not fifty thousand. He can no longer claim any kind of legitimacy after the party he founded (and now distances himself from) could not win a majority against ancient communists and bumbling nationalists.

Putin’s “box” offers him no convenient way out. In the old days, he could scold his ministers on his obsequious television networks for not paying pensions on time or for failing this assignment or that. After all, he was looking out for the people. This tactic will not work any more. The demonstrators, at last, understand that Putin is the problem.

Putin cannot cede power. He heads a vast corrupt KGB state of “scoundrels and thieves,” who have been robbing Russia blind for over a decade.  There is no peaceful retirement to his secret palace in Sochi. He can only protect himself and his associates by staying in power. Any successor government would banish him or put him behind bars. I can imagine the panic and confusion in oligarch villas, secret police headquarters, and regional governors’ office. Their resistance will be fierce. They have not only their wealth but also their personal freedom to lose.

.

go to Forbes.com

The Booing Heard Round the World

Vladimir Putin accepted his party’s nomination to be its presidential candidate. No surprise in this. But this time round, he goes before the voters without a claim to legitimacy. Russian politics have entered a new phase. The public has awakened to his corruption and stumbling economic policies. They do not want him back.

In his last election, Putin would have won big even without his evisceration of liberal opponents.  Oil prices were high. He could compare the relative stability of his years with the chaos of the Yeltsin years. Now, Putin’s public-opinion favorables are falling and his negatives are rising. His administration tried to suppress videos of the unprecedented booing he received at an appearance at a martial arts competition, but cell-phone videos of his embarrassment have gone viral on the internet.

Putin’s reelection is inevitable. He will not allow any legitimate challenger on the ballot. His only opponents will be the communist and nationalist parties, whose leaders both have negative popularity ratings.

 Russia will join a large number of countries with an unpopular leader who could not be elected in a fair race. Putin’s third term will be for six years, and he is eligible for another six. He will become Russia’s Mubarak and well understands this fact.

Oh No. Another Twelve Years of Putin

Four years of non-suspense ended Saturday. Vladimir Putin will return as president of Russia in March. This decision does not bode well for Russia, the West, or for those who wish to do business in Russia. In fact, nothing much will change. Only the election of a new president could change the status quo, and this is not going to happen.

Putin’s maneuvering within the constitution has restored the Soviet practice of lifetime tenure of the top leader. He became president at age 48. When he retires at age 72 (if he does not choose to serve longer), Putin’s quarter century tenure will match that of Joseph Stalin.

Let’s go back to the events of Saturday’s  United Russia convention: First,  Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rose to nominate protégé and current President Dmitry Medvedev to head the party list in the December parliamentary elections. As party head, he will  replace Putin as  Prime Minister. Newly lame-duck Medvedev, purportedly near tears,  then proposed Putin as the party’s presidential candidate for the March 2012 elections.  United Russia delegates approved both proposals unanimously and with enthusiasm. (All that was missing was the “stormy and sustained applause” of the Stalin era).

United Russia controls almost three quarters of the votes in the  Duma. Of the three other parties, only the Communists act as a feeble opposition. The other two are pro-Kremlin “pocket parties” that serve as democratic window dressing.

Russia’s new 2012 leadership has already been selected. Russia and the West are stuck with it, like it or not.

go to Forbes.com

Putin Takes an Electoral Shellacking and No One Notices

Russia’s regional and municipal elections on Sunday resulted in a shellacking of Putin’s United Russia that few noticed. Putin’s United Russia failed to achieve majorities in seven of the twelve regional elections. In Kirov and Kaliningrad, United Russia got less than forty percent. These results were overshadowed by events in Japan and the Middle East and few observers know how to interpret them.

To understand the failure of United Russia to win majorities, consider a U.S. election in which Republican candidates are banned, and Democratic candidates vie against candidates of the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Mountain Party and THEY FAIL TO WIN A MAJORITY. This was the case in Russia on Sunday.

United Russia candidates contended against the shop-worn Communists and the “powerhouse” “Patriots of Russia” and the “Right Cause.” Candidates from the crippled Yabloko party and independent candidate were largely excluded from the election lists. In all, fifty percent of candidates from parties without seats in legislatures and forty percent of independent candidates were not allowed to register for elections. Only United Russia candidates were allowed in the media or granted permission to rent space for meetings. Election violations in favor of United Russia were recorded in virtually all precincts.

These regional and municipal elections are a dress rehearsal for December’s elections to the State Duma. We can expect that Putin and United Russia will intensify their election tricks to exclude serious rivals such as Gary Kasparov, Boris Nemtsov and Mikhail Kasyanov.

We know little about the “kitchen” in which Russian public opinion sampling is done, notably by the Levada Institute. Their “ratings” of Medvedev, Putin, and the Russian government are supposed to be honest. They do show Putin’s ratings falling from the stratosphere of 80-88 percent to 72 percent in January. In the last year, the disapproval rating of the “Russian government” rose from 43 to 47 percent. These are ratings U.S. politicians would die for, but they do show erosion at the top.

If these ratings are accurate, it is unclear why the ratings of Putin and the Russian government remain in the stratosphere (relative to the rest of the world), despite a recent terror attack, inflation, high unemployment, and the after effects of a severe economic crisis. Putin has always used his high ratings to justify whatever he does as the will of the people.

If we look at results not associated with personalities, we see an emerging picture of dissatisfaction, beginning in 2007. In 2006, 14 percent of Russians thought “state power was weak.” This figure fell below ten percent in 2008 and 2009 and currently stands at ten percent. Russians may be getting tired of the “iron hand” of the Russian state. In 2006, 33 percent of Russians were worried about corruption, bribe-taking, and arbitrary behavior of officials. Now, this figure approaches fifty percent. As in other countries, the main concerns of Russians are rising prices, poverty and unemployment. In any other country, the government and the national leader would be held responsible. Why is this not the case in Russia? Either the Russian people are forgiving of their leaders or the Putin/Medvedev ratings are exaggerated.

In any case, we can expect extreme brutality, fraud and intimidation in the upcoming December elections. I would not like to be in the shoes of those brave figures who stand up to Putin and his United Russia.