More on Nashi’s Brigades

Eh, I disagree with his statement about democracy requiring a plurality. That’s just American mythology about itself and our greatness and openness to ideas, and blah blah blah. At best, the US has had a duality existing within a very narrow political spectrum. Communism? Don’t make me laugh. Socialism? What do you think this is, a welfare state? Get off your lazy ass and get a job!

However, that being said, the majority in Russia is definitely shouting down the minority. And there is no real political power outside of the Kremlin. Of course, this sort of thing never happens here.

There are definitely political problems and obstacles coming in this latest elections for Russia, but he’s sizing the country up for jackboots just a little too eagerly.

I thought the guy returned from some real street research. A kind of personal experience.
But he seems still hibernating. This time – with Moscow Times ))

What is the point to hypelink each other’s articles?

OK – these are my 5 kopeek
http://www.nashi.su/news/19788

“And there is no real political power outside of the Kremlin. Of course, this sort of thing never happens here.”

Power outside Washington, D.C. – what’s that?
Some one outside republicans/democrats can win? When this sort of things happened there? )

My point is not to decide what/who is better. Not at all.
I just don’t understand why Russia should look like US…

Wally:

You first post here relates well to the neo-liberal biases of the Global Voices promoted Fistful of Euros crowd.

They portray a certain Russocentric land as a dictatorship. Meantime, in many ways, its political system is actually more diverse than what one finds in America.

I’m leaving the name of that land out, since it might drive Tim Newman bonkers to see it posted.

Ivanov touches on an interesting point. outside Muscovy, aren’t there some Russian areas where non-UR officials have political clout? As for America, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders is pink at best. Just ask Alexander Cockburn.

Power outside Washington, D.C. – what’s that?

The power that resides inside 50 State Capitols, enough to sentence a man to death in California yet spare him in Rhode Island.

Meantime, in many ways, its political system is actually more diverse than what one finds in America.

Depending on how it is defined, I am not sure great diversity of a political system is to be desired. If it means that people from across a diverse range of political views have the opportunity to associate, form a political party, publish a manifesto, campaign for office, and get elected then I can’t think of many places where this is more easily done than in the US. Name a political movement, and I will show you its US branch office. That all but a few of these aspiring politicians are incapable of persuading enough people to listen to, fund, or vote for their ideas to the degree that they are propelled into American public office does not refute that the opportunity is there for people of almost all stripes. As somebody who wishes the small-government, libertarian movement to become a lot more powerful in the US, I am as dismayed by this state of affairs as anyone else.

If, however, diversity of a political system means all manner of political views are represented in office regardless of what those views are, then I cannot agree that this is necessarily a good thing. A few years back the Austrians managed to vote in Jorg Haider, a big fan of the Nazis. Is his election to public office something to be cheered in the name of diversity? Or should we have been championing Jean Marie Le Pen’s participation in the run-off against Jacques Chirac on the grounds that racist bigots were hiterto not represented at presidential level?

Provided everyone has an equal opportunity to run for office, I am only too pleased to see that idiotic fringe elements of the UK’s political scene remain as far from the seat of power as ever. One of the things of which as a Brit I am most proud is that communists were given every opportunity to establish themselves as a political force in the UK, but the voters told them to fuck away off. I hardly see Britain being the poorer because of it.

A valid point. In its first few decades, post-WW II Italy was known for having a series of not so effective governments in a multi-multi party kind of a reality.

Having “equal opportunity” to run is an issue. In America, a panel of Repubs. and Dems. decide which candidates can appear on televised presidential debates. Nader got knocked off of such a setting.

I’m willing to accept that for all the grudges, most Americans are content enough to leave things as is. Many mainstream American analysts agree. A good number of them incorrectly judge what some others abroad desire.

If it means that people from across a diverse range of political views have the opportunity to associate, form a political party, publish a manifesto, campaign for office, and get elected then I can’t think of many places where this is more easily done than in the US. Name a political movement, and I will show you its US branch office.

Ok. Name the non-democrat or non-republican other than Bernie Sanders in Vermont (my home state, I might add) who has been elected to a significant public office.

Sure, you can form any political party you want here these days. You can form parties in Russia too. But it doesn’t mean your opinion is going to be considered or that you are going to be elected.

Further, the predominant Democratic and Republican parties are essentially both conservative political groups, existing in a narrow spectrum.

Power outside Washington, D.C. – what’s that?

Staggeringly ignorant of the United States political system. The majority of politics, the stuff that affects people on a daily basis, is very local. In fact, the saying in the U.S. is “all politics is local”.

D.C. sets big policy decisions, allocates federal dollars, military spending, foreign policy. A good portion of the federal dollars for domestic spending is handing down to the states, who decide where to spend it within certain guidelines. Further, in New England all the politics and spending is on a town level, with locals voting several times each year on how and where to use their resources, etc. I can say that for my in-laws who are visiting this month, it is a bit of a shock to their Russian way of thinking. In fact, they suspect there is a trick involved. The local citizens voting must be just deluded into thinking their opinion counts for something in how their town is run.

Depending on how it is defined, I am not sure great diversity of a political system is to be desired.

Yes, I agree. I was knocking the kumbayah, all voices are heard, aren’t we wonderful, U.S. mythology of “plurality” necessary for a democracy. I still think a larger range of political ideas exist in the Russian parliament than … the U.S. Congress. However, those range of ideas are essentially token, as power is concentrated within one majority party and the presidency.

In essence, I think there are two modern models for democratic rule. (I’m probably generalizing and people can correct me on specifics, I am sure.) The U.S. two party system and the European multiparty coalition system(s). I’m biased, I tend to think the two party system creates a more effective government, even if it leaves certain voices and opinions unheard. These days, that can be very frustrating, as the two parties are so close politically. However, I can’t knock the two party system as being less effective than the parliamentary politics often exhibited in Europe.

I went back and reread Newman’s and Averko’s posts (to be sure I caught all their points) and have to say that for once, it sounds like we’re mostly in agreement.

Newman does make the point that the opportunity is there in the U.S. even if people can’t take advantage of it. Sort of like the tree falling in the forest and nobody hears. Strangely, I don’t think the laws are so much different in Russia than the U.S., regarding groups and assembly. However, how those laws are implemented seems quite different.

You can form parties in Russia too. [...]

Strangely, I don’t think the laws are so much different in Russia than the U.S., regarding groups and assembly.

Haven’t the party formation/registration requirements in Russia been made into a barrier to entry in the past couple of years? I seem to recall something about a large number of signatures being required, as well as a requirement that there be a certain number from each region. Maybe there are restrictions like this in other countries as well, I’m not a specialist in election law, so I wouldn’t know. But the situation in Russia doesn’t look like an accessible process.

You can make the argument that small groups can register in the US but that no one listens to them, so the net effect is the same, but in fact it’s very different – on the one hand, groups are able to organize free from government intervention and try their luck at fundraising and fielding candidates or promoting interests; on the other hand, in Russia you have groups like Ryzhkov’s Republican party being denied registration based on these high barriers to entry into the marketplace of ideas (if you will). Meanwhile, Kremlin-promoted parties like Just Russia have no trouble getting registered, because of their ability to use the “administrative resource.”

Allowing smaller, less popular groups to be active in public life is actually advantageous to the government, as it keeps people from going underground and becoming radicalized. Some people will be happy to find an outlet in officially promoted groups (EdRo, Nashi), especially since people in the country seem happy with the current leadership, but there isn’t much of an outlet for opposition public activity (not counting the bumbling liberals, clownish LDPR, and ossified KPRF, which hardly seem like a real, vibrant opposition). I don’t relish the thought of unrest and am not eager about “sizing [Russia] up for jackboots” (I also don’t think any meaningful unrest will take place during this election cycle), but eventually marginalized people will want to be heard.

I was thinking more of assembly in public places as a form of protest or demonstration, rather than political parties.

In most U.S. cities, I believe you need some form of permit to organize a peaceful demonstration, otherwise you risk arrest for disturbing the peace, creating a public nuisance, etc. I believe it is similar in Russia.

I just have the impression it is much easier to obtain such a permit in the U.S. than in Russia.

ivanov
“Power outside Washington, D.C. – what’s that?”

Tim Newman
“The power that resides inside 50 State Capitols, enough to sentence a man to death in California yet spare him in Rhode Island.”

This is not the power. Any kid can do this with 9 mm device …

I’m talking about real power. No matter what 50 Capitols are thinking Condolisa Rice still hibernates with Soviet missiles and makes her own decisions based on that…

I think you mix freedom and power. You can be free to set 10 parties – but will it give you any power outside party’s offices?

Ivanov, I think you’re mixing up the power to set domestic federal, regional and local policy (which actually affects people’s lives and which is what citizens and voters care most about) and the power to set foreign policy, which most Americans care very little about except as it pertains to places where our troops are fighting.

Looking back over the course of this thread an at least one other which relates to it: it’s safe to say that Russia is doing well without Soros and the neo-libs and neo-cons, who he has backed. Russia need not fear such forces. However, it can’t take for granted what some influential forces outside of Russia would like to do.

Org’s. like the NED, OSI and FH aren’t honest brokers. Case in point:

http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

Top heavy with Gershman, Holbrooke, Pascual and Fukuyama. Within the NED, there’s no significantly diverse political alternative to them.

Regarding Gershman & the NED:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/07/11/promoting-russian-democracy-by-financing-fascists/

http://www.antiwar.com/barry/?articleid=6866

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther10132005.html

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=106

———————————————-

” Holbrooke:

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/jatras/006.shtml

A real sweetheart eh?

———————————————-

” Pascual:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@32.DU5fdEA3VSh@.77480649/3278

A Brookings member, this former American ambassador to Ukraine was on the referenced Brookings panel, where he cheerlead a one sided anti-Russia/anti-Putin orgy.

———————————————-

” Fukuyama:

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8591

Just how far the other way has he gone and isn’t it better to prop those who get it right from the get go?

“Haven’t the party formation/registration requirements in Russia been made into a barrier to entry in the past couple of years?”

Yes, and they have knocked out a number of established parties by fradulently claiming problems with the signatures (with Yabloko in St Pete, the elections board claimed that people hadn’t signed them because the guy gathering the signatures wrote in the date). They have also seriously curtailed right to assembly, and constantly violate the curtailed rights that still exist. For one thing, you have to put in a petition 10 days in advance, which means that no one can respond to an event. Except that Zhirik is allowed to hold an impromptu meeting outside the US Embassy without notification or sanctions, etc.