sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7207|Argentina
Reading about Yeltsin's concerns, I came to the conclusion that Russia isn't a real Democracy.

Boris Yeltsin died a broken man, devastated that the democratic ideals he had tried to nurture were gradually being extinguished by his handpicked successor, Vladimir Putin, friends and former colleagues said yesterday.  Russia's first freely elected leader lived his last seven years as a virtual media recluse, never daring to criticise Mr Putin in public under an apparent deal to protect members of his family from criminal prosecution.

But what is a Democracy?

Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.  One key thing that separates strong democracies from weak democracies is that the latter use the police power of the state as a tool of the ruling party. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't mind throwing his enemies in jail or sending out the police to break up protests.

Then, is Russia a real Democracy?

Vladimir Putin's Russia, in many ways, looks and feels like a new Soviet Union. The Russian president, who once praised democratic reform, now rules, some Russian experts say, like an old party chairman — crushing all opposition, cracking down on anti-government protests, even appointing mayors and regional governors.  Putin calls it “sovereign democracy.” Critics call it dictatorship.  "Today, if Putin says 'I want this' it will be done," says Vladimir Ryzhkov, a member of parliament.

When Democracy fails in any country it is a sad thing, when it fails in Russia it can be very dangerous.

What do you think?
Is Russia a real Democracy? 
Should the World be more concerned about what's going on in Russia?  The World is very worried about Iran not being a real Democracy and its nuclear program, but what about Russia?
Is another Soviet Union being born? How would this affect the World, specially the EU?

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-26 05:50:29)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

At the moment it is a proper democracy. But they're on a slippery slope. It could all change.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7112|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

At the moment it is a proper democracy. But they're on a slippery slope. It could all change.
Without Liberals, America would be Russia.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7207|Argentina

Bertster7 wrote:

At the moment it is a proper democracy. But they're on a slippery slope. It could all change.
Isn't Democracy the rule of the people?  Is people ruling in Russia?  They can't even protest.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

At the moment it is a proper democracy. But they're on a slippery slope. It could all change.
Isn't Democracy the rule of the people?  Is people ruling in Russia?  They can't even protest.
Which is a step in the wrong direction. It is not the end of democracy. So long as there are free and fair elections then Russia will remain a democracy.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7207|Argentina

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

At the moment it is a proper democracy. But they're on a slippery slope. It could all change.
Isn't Democracy the rule of the people?  Is people ruling in Russia?  They can't even protest.
Which is a step in the wrong direction. It is not the end of democracy. So long as there are free and fair elections then Russia will remain a democracy.

The Economist wrote:

Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Isn't Democracy the rule of the people?  Is people ruling in Russia?  They can't even protest.
Which is a step in the wrong direction. It is not the end of democracy. So long as there are free and fair elections then Russia will remain a democracy.

The Economist wrote:

Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.
Like Labour and the Conservatives in the UK, like the Republicans and Democrats in the US? Are they not democracies?

In Russia there isn't much of an opposition to the United Russia party, but the 3 leading opposing parties are quite evenly balanced and have a moderate share of the vote.

The Economist are clearly talking about nations that despite having elections have a single party that corruptly maintains dominance. Much like in Zimbabwe.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7214|Dallas
Simply put:

Their economy is Capitalist.

Their formal government is Democratic.

Their leaders are full fledged Communists.


I'd say 70% probability of relapsing into Communism.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

Cougar wrote:

Simply put:

Their economy is Capitalist.

Their formal government is Democratic.

Their leaders are full fledged Communists.


I'd say 70% probability of relapsing into Communism.
Well the communist party do have quite a decent support base.....

But if that's what they want.....
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7207|Argentina

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Which is a step in the wrong direction. It is not the end of democracy. So long as there are free and fair elections then Russia will remain a democracy.

The Economist wrote:

Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.
Like Labour and the Conservatives in the UK, like the Republicans and Democrats in the US? Are they not democracies?

In Russia there isn't much of an opposition to the United Russia party, but the 3 leading opposing parties are quite evenly balanced and have a moderate share of the vote.

The Economist are clearly talking about nations that despite having elections have a single party that corruptly maintains dominance. Much like in Zimbabwe.
No, The Economist was talking about Russia.  Read the link.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7214|Dallas

Bertster7 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Simply put:

Their economy is Capitalist.

Their formal government is Democratic.

Their leaders are full fledged Communists.


I'd say 70% probability of relapsing into Communism.
Well the communist party do have quite a decent support base.....

But if that's what they want.....
Vladmir Putin was and would still be a card carrying member of the Communist party, if he hadn't denounced it to stay in office.  But on the inside, he's 100% commie.
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7131|Dayton, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

Boris Yeltsin died a broken man, devastated that the democratic ideals he had tried to nurture were gradually being extinguished by his handpicked successor, Vladimir Putin, friends and former colleagues said yesterday.
Your answer is right there.  "his handpicked successor"  A democracy is based off the will of the people.  If he was able to pick his successor then the process has already failed.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6969|Πάϊ

sergeriver wrote:

One key thing that separates strong democracies from weak democracies is that the latter use the police power of the state as a tool of the ruling party. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't mind throwing his enemies in jail or sending out the police to break up protests.
Show me a country that doesn't use the police as a tool to manipulate the public opinion. It is common practice! Utterly undemocratic of course, but I don't see why anyone would expect Russia not to use police brutality since the pioneers of this practice are those who claim to carry the torch of democracy.

sergeriver wrote:

When Democracy fails in any country it is a sad thing, when it fails in Russia it can be very dangerous.
Why do you say that? (honest question)
ƒ³
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7214|Dallas

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Boris Yeltsin died a broken man, devastated that the democratic ideals he had tried to nurture were gradually being extinguished by his handpicked successor, Vladimir Putin, friends and former colleagues said yesterday.
Your answer is right there.  "his handpicked successor"  A democracy is based off the will of the people.  If he was able to pick his successor then the process has already failed.
I'd say it was necessary at the time to preserve the idea of democracy in the country considering anyone else that ran for president would have been a communist who's only goal was to revive the USSR.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Which is a step in the wrong direction. It is not the end of democracy. So long as there are free and fair elections then Russia will remain a democracy.
Like Labour and the Conservatives in the UK, like the Republicans and Democrats in the US? Are they not democracies?

In Russia there isn't much of an opposition to the United Russia party, but the 3 leading opposing parties are quite evenly balanced and have a moderate share of the vote.

The Economist are clearly talking about nations that despite having elections have a single party that corruptly maintains dominance. Much like in Zimbabwe.
No, The Economist was talking about Russia.  Read the link.
One key thing that separates strong democracies (such as the United States) from weak democracies (such as Russia) is that the latter use the police power of the state as a tool of the ruling party. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't mind throwing his enemies in jail or sending out the police to break up protests.
A weak democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6969|Πάϊ

Cougar wrote:

Vladmir Putin was and would still be a card carrying member of the Communist party, if he hadn't denounced it to stay in office.  But on the inside, he's 100% commie.
Vladimir Putin's policy is the exact opposite of communist. He's a former KGB agent ffs! What on earth makes you say he's a commie?
ƒ³
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7214|Dallas

oug wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Vladmir Putin was and would still be a card carrying member of the Communist party, if he hadn't denounced it to stay in office.  But on the inside, he's 100% commie.
Vladimir Putin's policy is the exact opposite of communist. He's a former KGB agent ffs! What on earth makes you say he's a commie?

Wikipedia wrote:

Putin graduated from the International Branch of the Law Department of the Leningrad State University in 1975 and was recruited into the KGB. In the University he also became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, where he remained until the ban on it imposed in August 1991.
Commie.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

oug wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Vladmir Putin was and would still be a card carrying member of the Communist party, if he hadn't denounced it to stay in office.  But on the inside, he's 100% commie.
Vladimir Putin's policy is the exact opposite of communist. He's a former KGB agent ffs! What on earth makes you say he's a commie?
Because he was a member of the Communist party (before joining the KGB). Which I don't think can be held against him too strongly, since it was the only party around when he was a member.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7214|Dallas

Bertster7 wrote:

oug wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Vladmir Putin was and would still be a card carrying member of the Communist party, if he hadn't denounced it to stay in office.  But on the inside, he's 100% commie.
Vladimir Putin's policy is the exact opposite of communist. He's a former KGB agent ffs! What on earth makes you say he's a commie?
Because he was a member of the Communist party (before joining the KGB). Which I don't think can be held against him too strongly, since it was the only party around when he was a member.
You don't rise through the ranks of an organization (i.e. Communist Party/U.S.S.R. in general) unless you are incredibly loyal and incredibly entrenched in the beliefs of the current system.
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7131|Dayton, Ohio

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Boris Yeltsin died a broken man, devastated that the democratic ideals he had tried to nurture were gradually being extinguished by his handpicked successor, Vladimir Putin, friends and former colleagues said yesterday.
Your answer is right there.  "his handpicked successor"  A democracy is based off the will of the people.  If he was able to pick his successor then the process has already failed.
That could be true, but the entire concept has to be followed through.  You can not had pick your replacement.  The people have to make the decision for themselves.  I don't know the term limits in Russia but you have to allow the people to pick and make thier mistakes.  Once power was handed to Putin it is not like the could stop him from going commie if he wanted to.

The only thing keeping Russia "democratic" is the front that they want to put on for the rest of the world.  They don't want another cold war any more than we do.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7031|SE London

Cougar wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

oug wrote:


Vladimir Putin's policy is the exact opposite of communist. He's a former KGB agent ffs! What on earth makes you say he's a commie?
Because he was a member of the Communist party (before joining the KGB). Which I don't think can be held against him too strongly, since it was the only party around when he was a member.
You don't rise through the ranks of an organization (i.e. Communist Party/U.S.S.R. in general) unless you are incredibly loyal and incredibly entrenched in the beliefs of the current system.
I don't know that I would call Putin a communist, despite that. But he's no great fan of democracy either. I'd say Putin is just out for whatever he can get for himself and if anyone gets in his way he will crush them.

That's just the impression I get. I don't know much about Putin's career though.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6969|Πάϊ

Cougar wrote:

You don't rise through the ranks of an organization (i.e. Communist Party/U.S.S.R. in general) unless you are incredibly loyal and incredibly entrenched in the beliefs of the current system.
Nonsense. He was just determined to climb the ladder of power. And just because back then it went by the name "communist", it doesn't make it so. Russia was never truly a communist country. A hierarchy was present even then, and Putin was obviously determined to get to the top.

Plus, it seems to me that what bugs the Economist's columnist is the fact that Russia is rapidly reviving its old strength lately, ergo the attack on the moral side of this uprise. Because lets face it, Putin's Russia is not the only country suppressing the opposition with idiotic pretenses.

Last edited by oug (2007-04-26 07:04:53)

ƒ³
cMD-RR
Member
+17|6737
is argentina a democracy?
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6969|Πάϊ

cMD-RR wrote:

is argentina a democracy?
When I was in Stockholm I saw your king riding on his bike once
ƒ³
Sanjaya
Banned
+40|6676
I would not say Putin was communist except in the sense he was a Soviet. The Soviets, at least how I view them, are very much like the Chinese Communist Party. Not very communist. However, Putin probably longs for those authoritarian days, especially since he's in the position to play authoritarian.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard