The bleakness of Russian media is often citied as one of the clearest examples of Putin’s creeping authoritarianism. State control of television, its concentration under fewer and fewer corporations, the harassment and murder of journalists, police raids of media NGOs, newspaper and journal offices, evicting the Union of Russian Journalists from their offices, instituting “positive coverage” rules, and self-censorship are just a few of the things Russian journalists have to deal with to practice their craft. But as Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation reminds us, the bleak times also produce solidarity.
What is heartening are signs of solidarity among Russian journalists. A few weeks ago, for example, Tv2, located in the Siberian city of Tomsk, posted an open letter to President Putin in defense of independent media (and specifically in support of the Educated Media Foundation.) Within a few days more than 2000 journalists from almost all Russian regions had signed the petition.
And just a few days ago, all four of the radio correspondents for the Russian News Service, which provides news for three major radio stations serving about 8 million people, submitted letters of resignation. Artem Khan, a correspondent for the Service, said that he and all of his colleagues have walked out because of “censorship” and “pressure” to disseminate pro-Kremlin material from the company’s news executives who took control in April.
It is Russian journalists who will wage the most effective protests against attacks on media freedom. It is, after all, their country and their citizens who are being deprived of the independent and free flow of information.
Let us hope that these are signs that journalists are now beginning to fight back.
With the coverage of the FSU as a prime example, that activism should exist in the US, where it’s arguably more in need.
”With the coverage of the FSU as a prime example, that activism should exist in the US, where it’s arguably more in need.”
Are you actually trying to say that ”censorship” of views from the likes of you in the US is more serious than media censorship in Russia? I mean, are you actually joking?
On some topics, that’s a reality, which will be denied by the ignorant and not so truthful.
To be honest I cant comment too much on the press in the US, but I’d be greatly suprised if the US is as censored as Russia is. I get to see the Daily Show here in NZ and they seem to have no problem criticising Bush and all the obvious targets, etc. A hsow like that would be a big no-no in Russia. It seems to me Russia is much, much worse. Also bear in mind Mike that not getting published doesnt automatically equal censorship – quality does count, though I do appreciate that in all liklihood Russia does not get a fair hearing in the US media. It does in Ireland though, where there have been no hysterics about Litvienko, etc, just cold-eyed reporting of facts.
The Daily Show doesn’t cover all of the flaws Ger. Neither does The Nation Magazine with its promos for Ames and Arutunyan.
Use waybackmachine.net and get hold of:
Stephen Cohen: Mainstreaming for the Elites
Mike,
I did what you said but couldnt find the article anywhere, only bits of it on blogs here and there.
What does the Daily Show leave out, as a point of interest?
Former USSR and former Yugoslavia.
You just reminded me of an idea which ticked off a certain Moscow based Eng. lang. pundit. Those areas involving Eng. lang. coverage need a Dave Allen like gig.
As I noted in a prior QT, the problem with RTTV’s IMHO is that it’s solo. Some will like it and some won’t. Such solo political commentary shows flunk. As a case in point, Rush Limbaugh’s TV show was short lived.
Dave Allen’s show wasn’t solo. He had a bottle of booze keeping him company. He really loved sticking it to the Brits. It was a big hit in the UK, which shows the sporting side of that island.
Before we (royal plural) possibly receive some retalliatory bullshit about atrocious writing, check out the bottom of http://www.exile.ru which references an article about Michael McFaul.
As per that article, you’ve to use that source for http://english.intelligent.ru It was a good web mag. until it received some outside coercing.
To be fair, and this isnt having a go at you Mike, but is it really the job of the Daily Show and American-based programmes to be interested in or to cover the FSU in more detail than they do? Surely people would switch off. They want to see Bush lampooned most of the time I would think. I think, and I dont blame you for this, that because of your point of view and the fact that you consider yourself Russian you demand a more friendly side to US coverage. But I daresay there isnt a market there for it. It’d be like me living in London complaining about Paddy jokes. I’d be an island in a sea of people who dont care.
Dave Allen was a legend and in fact was an Irishman, though he was able to give us tons of abuse as well) The Irish love satire -if you want some good laughter, look up Flann O’Brien and Dermot Morgan, who’s caustic look at the Irish made them national heroes.
In contemporary America, there’s a Black comic by the name of Dave Chappelle (hope I’ve his last name spelling right), who is great at satirizing everyone.
On your other point, the Eng. lang. FSU coverage continues to lack and part of the reason has to do with the quality level. The quality level in that area can be easily improved upon. A small niche of folks are controlling who is and isn’t given a center stage, in a way that involves any combination of cronyism, political bias and sheer petty personal prejudices.
On a recent emailing on a FSU pundit, I used the http://www.exile.ru site search engine to get the below three results. That was a few weeks ago. Now, when I use that site search engine, I get no results. Hopefully, the eXile wasn’t or didn’t feel coerced to make such a search less easy.
http://www.exile.ru/2002-October-31/press_review.html
http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/feature_story.html
http://www.exile.ru/2002-November-13/sic.html
This leads to another commonly used pundit Taras Kuzio. The BBC keeps using him. In early ’05, he’s on record for saying that the days of Russian influence in Ukraine are numbered. The other night on the BBC, he changed to the more practical view that Ukraine will have to find a balance on that matter. In other words, he got it wrong unlike some others, who nevertheless get muted.
I’d be greatly surprised if the US is as censored as Russia is.”
Well no need to get surprised because American is not. In fact I would be hesitant to use the word “censor” in both cases because it suggests, at least to me, that the government is t he one who is not allowing the press to report.
Now this isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen, but I don’t think it is censorship as we might imagine it. That is censorship by some government agency that screens media. Censorship I think is much softer now. For example, when the White House met with reporters from the NY Times on their discovery of NSA wiretapping. In some cases editors delayed running stories buying into the government’s claims of “national security”. Other times they went with the story anyway.
There are two things that have to be remembered when concerning the American media: profit and access. THe major corporate media is wholly profit driven and this prevents them from reporting what some consider serious news. CNN and Fox for example are total fluff. Every time there is a wildfire or a child abduction it is on their station with ad nausea coverage. All local news is turned into national news. Or in a lot of ways how things are reported goes with the “mood of the masses”. For example, when the Iraq war was popular most news reports were uncritical, but when things began to turn, it is open season on Bush (except for Fox News of course).
But still criticism of the government occurs within certain parameters of acceptability. The media is distrusted by Americans as a self seeking class that wants to “destroy America”. The fact the label “liberal media” is so common is one way to prevent journalists from not digging too deep or reporting too harshly. Basically what I would say that is the majority of American media follows certain narratives about the world’s events. At the center of this narrative is to not question America’s fundemental interests. So for example, the debate about Iraq is more about the Bush Administration’s failure to be good imperialists than questioning imperialism as such. The Democrats’ plan, as far as one can discern one, is to improve the practice of American imperialism. Only rarely are this narrative questioned and when it is it usually comes from some marginal magazine like the Nation or other small left wing journal. There are controls on the Right too. Though I think that the “center” has drifted very very right in the last 15 years.
In regard to access, it is well known that if you are in the Washington Press Corps and you don’t play by the rules you will get expelled or by pasted. Just look at how Helen Thomas is now treated. Reporters, being careerists, tend to play it safe. Plus, there is an increasing revolving door between media and government. Tony Snow and George Stephanopolus are two examples that come immediately to mind.
I think that reporting on Russia by American media is similar. First we have to recognize that most reporting comes from people who don’t know the region and its history very well. And I don’t know if being in country for decades is any substitution. Clearly Edward Lucas has learned little from his 20 year experience. But most reporters on Russia follow a certain narrative about Russia. A narrative I would say is an outgrowth from the Cold War with a hefty dash of good old Orientalism. Russia doesn’t help with bucking the grand narrative American reporters have about the place. The actions by the Putin administration only confirm what many reporters already think. On the whole American reporters are much more critical of Russia (not to mention other countries that don’t follow American interests) than their own country. And vice versa.
Russia’s “management” (I tend to like this word more than “control”) of the media is similar, but it employs force far more often. They have yet to learn the art of silently regulating the ideological apparatuses. I think that the Russians have yet to understand that democracy doesn’t have to equal chaos, but in fact functions as a very effective means to employ ideological management over a population.
At American government briefings, Amy Goodman spoke of how she was looked at with amazed bewilderment by American mass media peers for asking tough questions. If I’m not mistaken, she didn’t last long in that environment.
There was also the time on WBAI when Bill Clinton felt she was insulting him on account of her asking the hard questions, much unlike Robert Bridge’s Moscow News interview of David Johnson.
As per Edward Lucas, a Russocentric version of him (including a more tame one) isn’t permitted in Anglo-American mass media.
Sean/Mike,
I’ve seen Fox News and its shocking how bad it is, really Sun-newspaper(UK) hysterics as you say about missing kids etc but with none of the humour. I have noticed watching programmes like the awful ”West Wing” that journalists do have to behave to get an audience with the big guns in the US, and I found it shocking that journalists actually travelled on Air Force One and were invited to White House parties, etc. Convenient or friendly or otherwise, surely these things are conflicts of interest. Journalists who are allegedly there to interview and question politicians shouldnt be travelling First-Class on the same transport. Seems to me that these people are in the pockets of US politicians. I suppose Mike is onto something there when he complains about US censorship(sorry for use of the word in a not entirely correct way, but I think you know what I mean)The situation ”with or us against us” in the US is in many ways more cynical than in Russia, or at least more dishonest. As for the US media being anti-Russia in bias, this is not suprising really. They’ve spent many years as foes and the American public are unlikely to even want to hear good news from Russia, much less that Russia is strengthening a bit again. It seems to me to be a supply-demand thing as much as anything, but not being there I could be wrong.
Edward Lucas is just bonkers. I read the PMR trave diary thing, and I was shocked at its anti FSU vitriol. He or whoever wrote it made continuous jibes at the conditions there and whilst this kind of stuff was new in 1992 when the FSU first opened up, frankly Russia-watchers have heard it all before. As you say its staggering a man that long in the business could be so narrow-minded. I’d expect that kind of bull from the likes of Tom Clancy.
When studied in detail, the Captive Nations Committee and its American congressionally approved Captive Nations Week holiday explains the crux of all this.
Russian mass media, inclusive of RTTV is at fault for doing a lousy job at detailing the anti-Russian biases which aren’t often related to anti-Communism. This is the kind of criticism of Russian media which you don’t get.
Remember Ethan Burger? The guy who lied about me at Siberian Light.
http://www.siberianlight.net/2007/04/10/the-best-books-about-russia-on-the-radio/#comment-35042
Russia Profile still uses him as a panelist. A Russian media exec. who visited me last summer astonishngly said that RP is a pro-Russian government/Russian government funded media operation. He received that bogus claim via second hand sources.
I made great progress with that person in establishing what’s so fucked up about the Eng. lang. coverage of the FSU. Unfortunately, he’s just one person and with restrictions.
You better believe that the situation can be improved with a more thought provoking and interesting presentation.
Lucas’ characterization of Pridnestrovie doesn’t jive with Chad Nagle, a seasoned attorney who has written extensively about the former Moldavian SSR (Moldavia and Pridnestrovie). Besides, TTT -I know a few people with roots in Pridnestrovie. Western educated, they share Nagle’s view.
The other side if you may spends great time and resources to conjure up a different spin. They don’t appear happy when their views are challenged. Hence, the game of gotcha, which involves a selective nit picking of more than doubled standards.
I just received an email asking me to express why the Russian media situaton is the way I stated.
On the American mass media side, there’s little if any interest to see an effective Russian mass media (RTTV included) successfully connecting with the non-Russian Anglo-American masses. Andrew Kuchins’ and Michael McFaul’s views about improving Russian mass media is an effort to get their views out at those venues.
On the Russian side, some of the court appointed Russia friendlys impress as being more concerned about advancing themselves. Others (as noted in my last post) mean well, but feel restricted. Not to be overlooked are factors like Derk Sauer and his Independent Media, which along with the not so Russia friendly Finnish Sanoma, own/operates outlets like The Moscow Times and greatly influences Russia Profile.
Some might recall RP Editor Andrei Zolotov essentially bitch slapping Julian Evans (a JRL promoted favorite)for falsely suggesting RP to be a Russian governmernt funded pro-Russian government organ. It’s (as I understand it) techincally owned by RIA Novosti, which contracted Indpendent Media to run RP. As Zolotov noted, the RP staff is made up of Moscow Times folks. BTW, RIA Novosti can hardly be accused of rubber stamping Russian government policies. Politically astute mainstream thinking Russians are aware of all of these points. On the other hand, many of the non-Russian Russia watchers largely dependent on JRL aren’t so aware of these variables.
I found it amusing that Vanden Heuvel managed to write a piece on Gorbachev’s birthday this year (“Gorbachev as founder of Russian democracy, betrayed by Yeltsin and Putin” blah blah blah blathery Nation-type boilerplate blah) without once mentioning that Gorbachev is an enormous fan of Putin. Talk about lying by ommission.
You know who she’s the wife of.
I respect her husband. However, he has mainstreamed for the elites as discussed in the Intelligent.ru article on him.
In fairness Chris, I’m not sure if that was so calculated on her part. Understand that her husband and herself have different priorities. If push came to shove, I believe that she’d acknowledge your point.
All this shows that the Nation is far from perfect and yes, there’s ample room for other very plausible Eng. lang. views on the FSU.
I’m quite fascinated by Gorbachev’s support of Putin. I was surprised when I first heard him support Putin, but then again, I’m not.
There is no doubt that Vanden Heuvel and hubby Cohen completely fetishize Gorby. I like Cohen a lot but his constant defense of perestroika is a bit much. He wrote an article in Slavic Review over a year ago about how the USSR and CPSU were reformable and perestroika would have made it a social democratic country. The problem is if perestroika was so effective then why did the whole thing implode?
On another note, I was talking to a friend last night who worked for Russia Today for a year. I asked her what the government’s relationship was with RT beyond funding. She said that this question was a “matter of much discussion and gossip” around the RT office. Everyday there was a editorial meeting where the staff was told what they were going to cover for that day. She said that the woman running the operation, one Margarita, who got calls every morning with instructions on what they were to cover. When there was breaking news, especially if it was news in or about Russia they had to wait for instructions before reporting. She said that on the whole, editors had very little decision making power over what stories to cover. And the direction of the news was more controlled in terms of Russia news rather than international.
That said, she didn’t say that there was any direct control from above on what they wrote, but I am sure that the atmosphere provided its own unwritten rules and guidelines. I will ask her more about it.
Sean, what you said about Cohen and RTTV is in agreement with my own perceptions, supported by sources quite familiar with those two subjects. Don’t be surprised if Surkov has some role with RTTV.
A major RTTV bungle was their coverage of the March ’06 Rada (parliament) vote in Ukraine. The presenter kept saying that Yanukovych had the support of the ethnic Russian vote. Sheer stupidity. That vote only constitutes roughly 20% of Ukraine’s population. Ya couldn’t have done as well as he did with just the ethnic Russian vote. In addition to not giving an accurate portrayal of that story, RTTV thus gave propaganda to the Russia unfriendlys by presenting Ya as a Russian candidate.
Another bungle saw the sports announcer refer to a hockey puck as a ball. We’re all allowed mistakes. However, Russia is a major ice hockey country.
For an entity of its type, RTTV is an underfunded operation. I’ve been told that Margarita Simonyan means well, while having limits which correspond with what you’re relaying.
I’m a big fan of the need for an effective RTTV and regret having to note all of this.
This is what sucks about the Eng. lang. FSU coverage. Frank discussion is discouraged in a censored manner.
Sports journalism is far more freer and detailed. An example being New York’s Mike Francesa of WFAN radio and WNBC television. He’s a ig time Yankee fan. This doesn’t stop him from critiquing the Yankees. Last night he made a political dissident like observation by noting how the George Steinbrenner owned YES TV network covered the booing of Yankee manager Joe Torre in Sunday’s game with the Angels. The actual boos came during a commnercial break. YES played a tape of the booing after the commercial break. Francesa noted that this was a calculated move, serving as a message that Torre could be replaced (fired) if the Yanks continue to lose. On other occasions, the YES network hasn’t shown anti-Yankee management signs (made by fans) in the stands.
Note that Francesa’s radio show is carried by the YES network. Try criticizing David Johnson and see where that gets you. With the support of others, I do it because there’s no basis for me to self censor and play second fiddle to a good number of managed folks he promotes.
The Eng. lang. FSU media environment sucks and is in need of some changes if it’s to enhance its image. One Eng. lang. media guy in Moscow is more concerned about pleasing DJ than reaching a greater audience. You can be sure that he’s not the only one. There does seem to be a certain element of wonks and wonk like journos more concerned about promoting each other.
Along with the experiences of others, I can attest to how some American networks coach guests and staff to go in a certain direction. The very selection process of hired staff and guests is often quite restrictive.
In mass media, there’s a view that’s it’s normal to spin in favor of the network’s slant. Over time, a pattern develops of a number of media people changing slants when they change employers. This is a primary disconnect with the public, which views such manner as uncomplimentary. US polls on Amercian public attitudes towards the media are negative for good reasons. Just about everyone is aware of an instance where the media at large has done a hatchet job. This awareness is on whatever subject a given person is familiar with. Now, how about the number of times many if not all of us have been subconsciously duped by the media on issues we aren’t so familiar about?
The whole “men of the 60s” perestroika generation supports Putin — Gorbachev, Medvedev, Solzhenitsyn. Well Zinoviev (RIP) didn’t but he was a KPRF guy.
Why wouldn’t they? Russia is much more democratic under Putin than under Yeltsin.
The recently deceased Rostropovich as well.
In sports, Slava Fetisov was a bit of a rebel in the USSR days. He now has the top government affiliated job of overseeing Russian sports.
wSean,
what you said above about RT is quite damning, actually, and does say an awful lot. But what baffles me about RT is this. If RT is allegedly there to promote Russia to the English-language world, then why does the Kremlin carry on with such appalling, totally counter-productive behaviour such as banning that demonstration in Samara and the shocking carry-on at the Gay Pride march, never mind the fact that banning a gay march is completely wrong anyway. And before anyone says ”but the march was banned”, yeah, I know, but that doesnt excuse the cops allowing nationalist animals to beat the shit out of the marchers or to join in themselves. It would seem to me that in the light of some of their behaviour, RT is a total waste of time and money for the Russian state. A bit of a Potemkin village.
”Russia is much more democratic under Putin than under Yeltsin.”
would you elaborate a bit on that one Chris, I’m a small bit confused. Genuinely. I’m not a Yeltsin fan but more democratic now? Stable, more economic growth, definitely, but more democratic?
Mike, Russians usually call the puck ”shyba” I think, and am suprised that a Russian station would make such a mistake. Hockey is taken very seriously in Moscow and its quite amazing a Russia-based station would make such a blunder.
“would you elaborate a bit on that one Chris, I’m a small bit confused. Genuinely. I’m not a Yeltsin fan but more democratic now? Stable, more economic growth, definitely, but more democratic?”
Yeltsin = despised leader implementing policies abhorred by the great majority and opposed to their interests.
Putin = hugely respected leader implementing policies approved of by the great majority and in sync with their interests.
Who’s more democratic?
The “demos” isn’t actually ruling per se, but the state is doing what the “demos” wants, which is what is important.
Chris,
what you describe above is not democracy. Its bread-and-circus rule and tapping into latent Russian nationalism, as well as a windfall of high oil prices. The current situation exists only because of what happened in the 1990′s under Yeltsin. Russian’s experience of what they term ‘democracy’ is not the one we know, or at least mine in Ireland anyway, or Britain for that matter. No money, wages not being paid, massive debt, humiliation in the war in the South -none of these things are democracy, and to pretend they are is nonsense. No matter who was in charge in the 1990′s, Russia was going to have a very hard road indeed. It didnt help that Yeltsin was incompetent, ill and an alcoholic, but the Russians hadnt a rouble ten years ago -and that is the heart of the matter. But that wasnt caused by Russia having a free press, something at least approaching free elections, freedom to vote for whom they wanted and a reasonably free media that reported all the shockers countrywide and in government. The condition Russia was in after Yeltsin meant the only way was up, and it came duly enough with a massive rise in oil prices. And funny enough, luckily enough, Putin was there at the time. But he didnt make that happen.I have no doubt that Putin has done well as President, but it is in comparison to Yeltsin and no-one else and he literally couldnt be any worse than his predecessor. He has been prudent with money and has struggled manfully with inflation – or is that Alexei Kudrin, really?- but to say that his rule is more ‘democratic’ than Yeltsin’s is simply not true. I dont know what democracy you know, but what’s happened to press and electoral freedom simply would not be acceptable in the British Isles and by our standards Putin is not anywhere near as successful as he is considered in Russia. And I dont believe the United States is this massively flawed democracy that a lot of exiles claim it is, either. Sure, there’s a nutcase in charge now, but that’ll change soon hopefully.
True, as you say, the state is doing what the population want, but that’s not democracy. Thats populism, a very different thing indeed, and if Russians really do favour all his more unpleasant policies – kicking out Georgians en-masse, making a mess of terrorist situations with huge loss of life, outlawing homosexuality, doing away with free media -then the country has deeper problems than I might have imagined.
By the way what ‘policies’ did Yeltsin introduce that were so unpopular, exactly? I dont mean things like oligarchs grabbing state assests and not paying wages – these arent policies, they’re corruption and having no money and robbing, respectively -I mean what laws did he enact that were so unpopular? I know he himself was deeply disliked, but I’m not aware of any huge shifts from Russian thinking that he had. Funnily enough the biggest demos I ever saw in Moscow were against a Putin policy, the conversion to cash of free transport and utilities for the elderly. And, tough and all as he is, he backed down and blamed Fradkov for that one.
“The condition Russia was in after Yeltsin meant the only way was up, and it came duly enough with a massive rise in oil prices.”
I just don’t believe this. I think Russia was very close to total collapse in 1999-2000. There is never a situation in which the only way is up. Things can always get worse.
I also don’t think the recovery is all based on fortuitous high oil prices. Without the stability provided by Putin (“Putin” here really means “the Russian government”), that money would have all been transfered out of the country. That stabilization was created primarily by neutering the oligarchs.
I said “more democratic,” not “perfectly democratic.” I would perhaps go as far to say that Brezhnev was more democratic than Yeltsin. (I frankly do not care about labels — I do not valorize “democracy” as an abstract.) By “policies” of Yeltsin I had in mind specifically the rigged privatization schemes that created the oligarchs.
Georgians were not kicked out of the country en masse. A small fraction of the Georgians in the country illegally (which is most Georgians) in Russia were deported. What happens to illegal immigrants in the EU?
(When did Putin say homosexuality should be outlawed? I missed that.)
Wait a second Ger — rossiyane certainly CAN vote for the political party of their choice.
That choice happens to be overwhelmingly United Russia. Formerly it was the Communists, which obligated Yeltsin to engage in a lot of shady maneuvering Putin doesn’t have to resort to. Would he do so if he was in a similar situation to Yeltsin? I don’t know.
They also have access to completely free (rather, non-government-managed) print media available in any street kiosk. As a regular reader of Ogonyok and Argumenty Nedeli and an occasional reader of Sovetskaya Rossiya, I can attest that they are quite, quite far from being pro-Kremlin.
I can’t even make myself read Novaya Gazeta — the level of antigovernment raving in that thing issufferable.
Chris, as you say yourself, the country was on the verge of collapse – therefore, logically, it can only go to either collapse, one step down, in your words, or up – and up it went, thanks to high oil prices. There’d have been no stability of any description had this not happened. Putin wouldnt have had a leg to stand on without money to pay wages -he’d have been Yeltsin only with less hair and wit. And your point ignores that Russia was still in major crap through Putin’s first year or two until the cash started pouring in. Wages were still not being paid in this period. Putin gives this impression of calmness and stabilty, but this is borne entirely out of available moneys. Unpaid wages will cost someone their job eventually, and Putin, luckily, got the cash just when he needed it.
”That stabilization was created primarily by neutering the oligarchs.” is a Russian legend that, like so much of Russian thinking, ignores economics. When cash flows into a country, it stimulates growth on the ground -some of it must trickle down -and means the state can pay both internal and external debt. That solidifies the currency. People start to spend more, the demand for goods and services increases and inward investment follows. Unless I’m mistaken, the Russian Stcok Exchange has had massive growth over the last four years or so which has been propelled by in a very large part by direct inward foreign investment. So to say that Putin ‘kept’ all this money in the country by clamping down on a few undersirables is just rubbish. The money in Russia now is foreign, and where, by the way are Russians investing? Abroad, as a matter of fact. The only oligarch that buys anything significant in Russia is Oleg Deripaska.
You didnt say perfectly democratic, you said Russia was more democratic now than in the 1990s. It isnt by any objective measure of the western notion of democracy, and seeing as we’re speaking english, thats what I assumed you meant. If you mean corrupted, censored rule, then certainly Russia is way ahead of the 1990′s now. Its got nothing to do with labels. You made a statemnet and I disagreed with it, and remember it was you who used labels in the first place. And there’s nothing abstract about democracy at all. Its simple -free elections -first and foremost -free, objective media from which people can take information to make up their minds and the separation of state from the judicial process. Nothing to it. There are lapses in these things in other countries, but what Russia has is systemic disregard of what democratic western nations, again using Ireland as an example, would regard as freedom. Again, I cant account for the USA, but by our standards at home, Russia is very close to dictatorship.
Quite a lot of Georgians were thrown out, and whilst fair enough, most were illegal, some were not and the process’ legality iffy at best. In the EU, we do have due process, and tend to pick on all illegals equally, rather than just one nationality or skin colour, and we’d at least have the subtlety to wait until a major spying scandal, funnily enough involving Georgia, of all places -suprise, suprise -had died down. Physically grabbing people after cursory searches and putting them on planes is not really the EU style. We’re such a bunch of pansies, really.
”When did Putin say homosexuality should be outlawed? I missed that.) ”,,
Chris, its not like you to say I said something I didnt, and I hope it was cos you got bored reading my first comment and simply scanned through, rather than misquoting me. By your own logic, if Putin and the government are responsible for all the good, then surely the bad also. Unless I am mistaken, there’s a bill due very soon before the Duma, a United Russia one, actually outlawing homsexuality. And we can all see on tv what happened in Moscow at the weekend. Call me a leftie, but banning gays and cracking their skulls is, well, a little passe in the 21st century. Maybe in Saudi, but in the free thinking, democratic Russia you tell me about? Surely not.
Chris,
the most I can read is Speed-Info, and that with difficulty, but Putin is known not to care whats printed. Tv is far and away the most important media in Russia, and it is censored, or rather, self censored, no doubt. I do take that point definitely, but look even on the metro – people are either reading books or rags. Which does say something – Russians are getting what they want, which is good for them I guess, but democracy it aint.
“”That stabilization was created primarily by neutering the oligarchs.” is a Russian legend that, like so much of Russian thinking, ignores economics. “
Sorry, I just don’t believe it. It’s totally counterintuitive. People in Russia were not making long-term investment plans in the 1990s because they did not know what the political condition in the country was going to be in the next few months, let alone years. That unstable political environment was due in part to the country being controlled by bickering Mafia empires — who are no longer in business, or at least not bickering.
Free and fair elections and so forth do not a democracy make. An oligarchy can have free and fair elections. They just don’t matter very much.
Ger, I don’t really disagree with you in essence, but you’re engaging in hyperbole when you say stuff like Georgians were kicked out en masse, homosexuality is being outlawed, and there are no independent media. That’s just not true — you’re taking certain trends and exaggerating them.
I nowhere said that Russia was perfectly free and democratic, I said that Putin-era Russia is more democratic than Yeltsin-era Russia, and all public opinion polls in Russia I have seen corroborate me in my belief. I*n fact not only in Putin given higher marks on human rights and democracy than Yeltsin, he outperforms Gorbachev.
Just as an aised, I watch Russian TV regularly, and while the news programs do generally follow a “today Putin met with the president of Libiya and they talked; tomorrow he will meet with the German chancellor and they will talk” kind of thread, there is a great deal of debate on the talk shows. Zyuganov and my least-favorite Russian politician, Khakamada, still get airtime. I saw Zyuganov ranting about Just Russia on TV just the other week.
”People in Russia were not making long-term investment plans in the 1990s because they did not know what the political condition in the country was going to be in the next few months, let alone years.”
I wouldnt dispute that for a second, but the investment conditions were created not by the removal or control of a few oligarchs, but primarily by an increase in the state revenues because of high oil prices. There’s no doubt that not having BB dictate economic policy would help increase investment, but without money, one can do nothing and the rouble’s strength and the public purse is down in huge measure to the influx of oil cash. Russia’s GDP leaving out oil is second world and was third world before the oil boom. Nothing can come from nothing, and the idea that its down in any big way to government management in the initial stages is simply not true. Russia’s economic turnaround simply would not have accelerated at the rate it did without oil, which in turn led to cash coming in and cash staying in. No President, Prime Minsiter or policy in the world can do that, no matter how tough they let on.
”Free and fair elections and so forth do not a democracy make.”
well, without them, its definitely not a democracy, its fair to say. And as well as that, you’re ignoring the fact that a lot of parties have been disenfranchised by the percent Duma quota and candidates everywhere have been struck off the ballot for ‘administrative errors’. I have no doubt people want to vote for Edinaya Rossiya and Putin; but that doesnt make getting rid of sections of the opposition right. What is wrong with letting people have information on tv and decide for themselves?
Chris, I’m not indulging in hyperbole, I read somewhere here in NZ that there’s a bill due before the Duma outlawing homosexuality. I’m not making it up – for what? And gays getting mauled by nationalist animals the other day was world news, not to mention Luzhkov calling them ‘Satanic’. And as well as that TV, the main media in Russia, is not free or fair. Call a spade a spade here. I’m just waiting for Filya to tell us vote United Russia.
”I*n fact not only in Putin given higher marks on human rights and democracy than Yeltsin, he outperforms Gorbachev. ”
Good God. I bet my nationalist wife and father in law contributed to that nonsense. Once again I’ll remind her to stick to what she knows, like shoes and handbags)
”I said that Putin-era Russia is more democratic than Yeltsin-era Russia,”
and I simply said that by any objective measure of democracy, that is simply not true. The government have got their shit together, but that’s not democracy. Its called ‘not being incompetent’.
You’d better hope your wife doesn’t read this blog.
A bill being introduced in the Duma that would make homosexuality illegalis not the same thing as it being actually made illegal. It just means somebody introduced a bill. The bill has to pass. This is not the first time such a bill has been introduced — last time Zhirinovsky got off some good zingers on the occasion. Does anyone think it actually has a chance of passing? (What would poor Boris Moiseev do?) This was somebody in the Duma’s attempt to draw attention to himself. It should not be taken seriously. Thus you are engaging in hyperbole, as when you say that there are no independent media (which you later amended to saying that there is no independent media IN TELEVISION, which was not hyperbolic, or only slightly so).
I do not hold Western models (what is meant by “democracy” here, even though there are many other kinds — participatory democracy for instance) as normative, so saying “system in country x is not like system in country y” has no weight for me. The United States and UK are currently involved in a disastrous conflict in Iraq, despite the opposition of the American and British populations. Is this democratic?
“Democracy” means “rule by the demos” and that is all it means. Certainly Russia does not have that (one could argue that no country in the world has that). However, the current government is FAR MORE responsive to the desires of the demos and has more participation by them THAN THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT.
Also, as a note, it seems to be generally assumed that local parties getting struck off of lists is somehow rooted in some Kremlin policy. I think this is mostly just wrong. These are acts of local elites trying to manipulate things in their favor, and the Kremlin has nothing to do with it.
A number of local American town vote issues have a similar enviroment.
Ger:
Among Russian ice hockey fans, the pronounced in Eng. “shyboo” (meaning puck) is a common chant at games.
RTTV would defintely benefit by having an in house trouble shooting generalist, who is frank and with a backbone. This includes a strong resolve to see that org. succeed as originally intended. Knowing the Eng. language mass media’s coverage and how to best combat it is key.
Free and fair elections and so forth do not a democracy make.
In that case, I am left wondering what does.
Besides, on one measure – that of how regional governors get their jobs – Russia is less democratic under Putin than Yeltsin. I’d be interested to see if there is any measure by which Russia can be deemed more democratic under Putin than Yeltsin.
The United States and UK are currently involved in a disastrous conflict in Iraq, despite the opposition of the American and British populations. Is this democratic?
Yes. Under the British and American system of democratic government, the electorates choose certain individuals to form a government and carry out tasks on their behalf for certain period, after which the electorate get to choose different individuals if they so wish. There is no obligation on the part of the government of the day to hold a vote on every issue, as they have already been given the remit to take such decisions on behalf of the electorate, even if those decisions are unpopoular with a majority.
Anyway, in each case the government has been returned in a subsequent election, which suggests that although the Iraq war is unpopular, it is not the overiding issue on which the electorate votes.
Mike -I stand corrected, shyboo it is if you say so, you know more about hockey than me. Its a cool word though.
”You’d better hope your wife doesn’t read this blog.
”
I think I’ll just ban her from reading, full stop. Puts ideas in her head)!
”Thus you are engaging in hyperbole, as when you say that there are no independent media (which you later amended to saying that there is no independent media IN TELEVISION, which was not hyperbolic, or only slightly so).
”
That would be all very well, but how do you know that the Duma will vote no, exactly? If I’m speculating it may be passed, then surely you’re simply speculating the opposite. How precisely do you know? You dont. Or maybe you have some inside contacts? Russians are atrociously homophobic and as you say the Kremlin and Duma are delivering the will of the people. Wait and see if it fails. And apart from anything, such a bill wouldnt even reach the floor in any civilsed country. And that answer doesnt account either for the fun and games last weekend in Moscow, where a few heads were bashed in. Russia is below a laughing stock this week because of that one, and people are even asking me about it here in Wellington. What can I say? What we see reflects Russian thinking on homosexuality. Brutal.
Chris, again to go back to Ireland and Britain, we have proper tv channels where the performance of the government is scrutinised and critised ever night in minutae, and politicians, PMs included, are expected to answer for themselves, unlike Putin’s controlled Q&A session just once a year. We also have waffle-type talk shows as well, but the news is the heart of the matter and it is upon the information derived from the news that people form their opinions. What we dont have are ”today our President got up, had breakfast, a dump, a shave, then met blah blah blah. Such news at home would be considered first as contemptuous and then as censorship. This is the rubbish that passes on Russian tv as news. I conceded the point that the print media is free but no-one reads it and worse consider most newspapers as mouthpieces for businessmen. Also,Argumenti i Fakti simply does not criticise the Russian state in any meaningful way at all, its mostly full of celeb stories and bits of madness from Moscow and the regions, but it does not say ”why doesnt Putin/Kremlin/Duma sort out this/that/the other, its their fault? This is the difference between our media and Russia’s. Ours continually question and criticise those in power, and connects them directly with the faults of the country. Russian media, and most importantly tv, simply does not do that. Russians probably do not care that that is the case, but I prefer making up my own mind on things as do most westerners.
”Also, as a note, it seems to be generally assumed that local parties getting struck off of lists is somehow rooted in some Kremlin policy. I think this is mostly just wrong. These are acts of local elites trying to manipulate things in their favor, and the Kremlin has nothing to do with it. ”
Is the quota also just local elite policy then, or national? And if the booting off of candidates is only down to local elites, how come there arent any United Russia people thrown off? Is that because, maybe, just maybe, the state absolutely controlling the electoral registration process? Put it this way, can you imagine the outcry in the UK if suddenly opposition candidates couldnt get registered in large numbers because of ‘administrative errors’? Gimme a break Chris.
”The United States and UK are currently involved in a disastrous conflict in Iraq, despite the opposition of the American and British populations. Is this democratic?”
Absolutely. If the people arent happy, they dont re-elect them, and if the war was that unpopular in the interim then the PM would have to stand down and there’d be policy changes. And at least you’ll here our PM’s criticised on tv for it, not like in Moscow, where the sun is widely considered to shine out of Putin’s backside. Mainly becauase there’s no-one allowed on tv to say otherwise.
“In that case, I am left wondering what does.”
Control by the demos. If elections do not actually matter in controlling the country and do not effect the internal power dynamic, they are irrelevant. I’m sure our Marxoid blogger friend Sean could expatriate on this in length.
“Besides, on one measure – that of how regional governors get their jobs – Russia is less democratic under Putin than Yeltsin. “
You must be kidding. Regional governors were by and large never in fact “elected.” The President of Tatarstan regularly got, what, 97% of the “vote”?
“That would be all very well, but how do you know that the Duma will vote no, exactly?”
Well, I don’t have epistemological certitude, but given that the people in the Duma are (mostly) not insane, I find it extremely doubtful. A bill could also be introduced nominating Putin’s horse to the Duma too, and while I don’t have 100% knowledge that it would not be passed, I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t. I also am willing to hazard a guess that the sun will rise tomorrow and the force of gravity will continue to function.
“And if the booting off of candidates is only down to local elites, how come there arent any United Russia people thrown off?”
Becuase United Russia is currently the most powerful political force, and local elites don’t want to get on its bad side? The same reason for the local vote fraud in 2000, and likely in 1996? The Kremlin doesn’t have to fix elections — the locals will do that on their own.
I think that would you are seeing as some kind of centralized controlled system is not that at all. It is chaotic.
(I don’t see what societal homophobia has to do with democracy.)
”You must be kidding. Regional governors were by and large never in fact “elected.” The President of Tatarstan regularly got, what, 97% of the “vote”?”
I dont accept that for a second, I believe it to be factually untrue. One of the main reasons Russians were not bothered with the scrapping of gubernnatorial elections was that they were actually sick them. Local televison was full of endless ads for candidates and interviews, posters blighting the countryside.
Alexander Lebed, Boris Nemstov etc, these people were all elected. No-one is saying they were perfect elections, but they were elections, nonetheless.
An election controlled by the mafia is not an election. An election in which the outcome is predermined by local corrupt power cliques, or in which the only choices are local corrupt power cliques, is not an election.
So, did the president of Tatarstan really get his 90%+ of the vote?
Does the appointed governor of Dagestan currently live in a two-room apartment, or not? (Answer: he does.)
How do you know why Russians supported the annulling of the gubernatorial elections? Did you take a poll? Or do you just “know” it because it sounds right?
”Well, I don’t have epistemological certitude, but given that the people in the Duma are (mostly) not insane, I find it extremely doubtful. A bill could also be introduced nominating Putin’s horse to the Duma too, and while I don’t have 100% knowledge that it would not be passed, I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t. I also am willing to hazard a guess that the sun will rise tomorrow and the force of gravity will continue to function.”
You dont have any certainty at all, in fact, and you are speculating, and purile statements about gravity continuing to function are pretty cheap. I’m not sure myself the bill will pass, but who’s to know? And I wouldnt be suprised if Putin’s dog got a Duma seat. Lets face it, they pass everything else. And you avoid the fact that in anywhere civilised such a bill wouldnt even reach the floor. You also underestimate how popular such a bill would actually be with the ever-so-decent Russian public.
”(I don’t see what societal homophobia has to do with democracy.)”
You dont? Funny that, because in civiised countries, which are more often than not democracies, the state would actually criticise and intervene against gay-bashing. In Russia, the state in the form of the cops and mayor actually join in in this activity. The cops are, after all, political enforcers in Russia rather than public servants.
”Because United Russia is currently the most powerful political force, and local elites don’t want to get on its bad side? The same reason for the local vote fraud in 2000, and likely in 1996? The Kremlin doesn’t have to fix elections — the locals will do that on their own.”
Again, in democracies as I know them, civil servants, not members of political parties or canvassers handle the whole electoral process. And, unlike Russia, civil servants are not obliged to do what politicians order them; they are obliged to carry out and obey the law. So one party or another cannot ‘help’ remove people from the ballot.
You still didnt account for the 5% electoral quota for the Duma, which is another base-covering exercise for Edinaya Rossiya and most certainly undemocratic.
“An election controlled by the mafia is not an election. An election in which the outcome is predermined by local corrupt power cliques, or in which the only choices are local corrupt power cliques, is not an election.”
****
In the US, that era of Mayor Dailey Chicago politics isn’t completely over.
”How do you know why Russians supported the annulling of the gubernatorial elections? Did you take a poll? Or do you just “know” it because it sounds right?
”
I didnt take a poll, Chris, I actually have to work at work to make money and sadly hadnt the time to seek definitive validation of my opinions before I put them on blogs. But I have asked lots of Russians both in Moscow and at home how the feel. Some of them werent impressed, but it was the usually shrug fo the shoulders, but most seemed not to care and no amount of trying to convince them otehrwise worked. They didnt give a shit really. And no, I didnt say I had this opinion cos it ”sounds right”, much as I believe you would never make such an assumption yourself, eg your suggestion that Russia is now more democratic than during Yeltsin’s time. I’m sure you’re relying totally on empirical evidence)
“You still didnt account for the 5% electoral quota for the Duma, which is another base-covering exercise for Edinaya Rossiya and most certainly undemocratic.”
Hailing as I do from the US with its de facto two-party system, I shall not comment on the 5% electoral quota.
I think we may be using different understandings of the word “democratic.” You are using it in the sense of elections and so forth — I am using it in the sense of “serving the interests of the people.” Those are not the same thing.
In any case my claim, which seems pretty obvious to be, is not that Russia is a “democracy” but that it is more democratic today than during Yeltsin — remember, that guy who engineered the elction in 1996 and shot the parliament with tanks? That super-democratic guy who started the First Chechen War and created the oligarchy? I mean, COME ON.
Mike -I stand corrected, shyboo it is if you say so…
Ger,
You did nothing wrong. It’s called ?????? (cases):
????? – ????? – ????e – ????? – ?????? – ?????
”Hailing as I do from the US with its de facto two-party system, I shall not comment on the 5% electoral quota.
”
Hailing as I am from the Land of Paddies, 5% is a huge number. Often parties with less are needed to form coalitions, which can then blunt any nutty ideas the main parties have.
”any case my claim, which seems pretty obvious to be, is not that Russia is a “democracy” but that it is more democratic today than during Yeltsin — remember, that guy who engineered the elction in 1996 and shot the parliament with tanks? That super-democratic guy who started the First Chechen War and created the oligarchy? I mean, COME ON. ”
I cant argue with the last bit, but the quota, scrapping gubernatorial elections, severe limitations on criticism of the government on tv, knocking out candidates on trivialities…I suppose its all a point of view really.
Back to selective nitpicking db.
Ger:
At issue, are the not so democratic aspects found in Russian republics having great autonomy. Greater autonomy doesn’t always mean greater freedom.
As per a RARE JRL archived piece of mine “Putin Re-examined”, elements in the American south advocated “states’ rights” in part to more easily have discriminatory policies against Blacks. Likewise, when Kosovo was given autonomy within Serbia in 1974, the instances of terror in that province increased. All one has to do is check Western mass media reports at the time. Back then, there was no interest to favor one side or the other in that particular area.
DB,
I was almost certain it was ‘shaiba’ in the nominative case, cos I asked someone once whilst watching the Winter Olympics what the word for it was.
Is there any chance he heard people saying ”Myu khotim shybu” by any chance? Sorry for the bad Russian.
Don’t India and France both do the “governor by appointment” thing?
I’m not sure to what extent India can really be considered a democracy though. Corruption in India is unbelievable.
India’s got all the bad stuff Russia has, only worse! Massive corruption, check. Ethnic violence, check. Huge wealth inequality, check. Brutal war against Islamist/separatist insurgency, check. Bribe-taking police, check.
They just have better PR amd aren’t White; hence, they are “India Shining.”