This just came from the Associated Press via CNN. Today, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said of Russia:
“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
“I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma,” said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
While certainly true, I can’t help wonder that while Rice denounces the Kremlin’s power, she can’t help be a little jealous of Putin. Especially considering that the American Executive has moved in the same direction over the last decade and a half. Keep glaring into that mirror Condi. Often what we denounce is what we secretly desire.
As for a recommended reading tip on the architectural and political isolation of Bush see Todd S. Purdum’s the excellent “Inside Bush’s Bunker.”
While certainly true, I can’t help wonder that while Rice denounces the Kremlin’s power, she can’t help be a little jealous of Putin.
What exactly is this based on?
It’s just an opinion based on the Bush administration constant efforts to not comply with Congressional investigations and Supreme Court decisions. As Bush said in 2000 and 2001:
“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
– CNN.com, December 18, 2000
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.
– Business Week, July 30, 2001
So it’s an opinion based on an attempt at psychologically analysing what Condoleeza Rice wants, as opposed to the more traditional basis of analysing what somebody says and does?
This is no different from the lame articles which appear in the western press regarding Putin’s supposed desire to recreate the USSR.
I should also say that the consolidation of power into the Executive is not Bush’s doing. Clinton began this in the 1990s. Bush is just building on precedent.
So it’s an opinion based on an attempt at psychologically analysing what Condoleeza Rice wants, as opposed to the more traditional basis of analysing what somebody says and does?
Yep. But the increased power of the American Executive is an accepted fact. It’s only the most naive that still think there is an equal balance between the branches. The sad thing is that this consolidation has been sanctioned by Congress.
But what the hell has this got to do with Rice’s comments about Russia? For once a representative of the US government says something concise, accurate, and should interest anyone genuniely concerned about Russia, and we get in return a belittling opinion that Rice secretly wants Putin’s power, based on the fact that the presidential power in the US has been increasing for the past decade – despite it not being anywhere even close to the levels of presidential power in Russia.
You can do a lot better than this, Sean. Perhaps scoring a cheap point against Bush and Rice goes down so well in the corridors of Californian academia that you found it too hard to resist.
It’s not so monolithic an environment Tim.
California academia and American acadmeia at large are less monolithic than the Repub./Dem. political establishment, which some refer to as a one party system divided in two of the same whole.
You can do a lot better than this, Sean.
I can but I don’t have the time now. Granted it was a cheap shot but not just against Bush but the American system as a whole. Cheap shots happen sometimes.
And I don’t think Bush’s power is equal to Putin’s. I do think that within the American system the Executive (not Bush in particular) has amassed a large amount of power (though executive orders and sanctioned by Congress). I do think that if Bush (or any American president) was given Putin’s power he wouldn’t reject it. Hence the reason why I said it was I wonder if it was a desire on Rice’s part. My bog worry is not with Bush per se (unless he goes to war with Iran, which is madness in my opinion), but with who follows him. The Republicans are fuck ups, but the Democrats are sly imperialists that actually give you a reach around while simultaneously fuck you over.
But my thoughts on this, including the cheap shots, are based in my opinion that American democracy (and democracy in general) is under crisis. This crisis is connected to two other global crises: the crisis of secularism and the crisis of Enlightenment as universal values for all of humanity.
I do think that within the American system the Executive (not Bush in particular) has amassed a large amount of power (though executive orders and sanctioned by Congress). I do think that if Bush (or any American president) was given Putin’s power he wouldn’t reject it.
I agree with you on this point: politicians usually seek the maximum power available, by fair means or foul. The answer is to limit the power of politicians, but as I’ve said before on this blog, nobody seems to want to do that; too many people are happy with politicians wielding excessive power, provided it is their man wielding it.
The Republicans are fuck ups, but the Democrats are sly imperialists that actually give you a reach around while simultaneously fuck you over.
Yeah I may bash on the Republicans, and Bush in particular, a lot, but I have a deep, deep contempt for the Democrats. So deep that I can’t even express it civil discourse.
In my more cynical moments I think that a Democratic President will be worse because the Dems would be successful in convincing the country that things are wonderful. At least with the Repubs, I know what I’m getting and that I’m going to get it straight since their bullshit is so transparent. I can respect that. The Dems’ bullshit smells so good that the public verges on coprophilia.
Sean, I think the balance of power ebbs and flows between the branches in the US. Wasn’t the era of Johnson and Nixon’s first term supposed to be the era of the “Imperial Presidency“? Then Nixon overreached (to put it mildly), and there was a period of presidential weakness. At the moment, I don’t think Bush is exactly able to get his agenda (whatever is left of it) passed on Capitol Hill.
And the most important difference between the US system and the system which seems to be taking shape in Russia is something you acknowledge but seem to discount – at the end of the day, Bush will be gone in 2008, and even if another Republican replaces him, there will be a house-cleaning in the Executive Branch. All of the major jobs will turn over. I agree that Bush has dragged many American values through the mud during his time in office, but happily the system is stronger than one man. So while Bush might wish he could be dictator for a day, I doubt that institutionalizing an all-powerful presidency is a serious possibility. The system isn’t perfect, but it seems to work better than anything else out there (though we may all be singing a different tune – in Chinese – in a few decades
).
For once a representative of the US government says something concise, accurate, and should interest anyone genuniely concerned about Russia,
This is not her best short, really. The best – concise and accurate one – was about “Soviet missiles”. 16 (sixteen) years after CCCP has gone – Secretary of States still doesn’t know that.
Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media
Every time I hear Rice – I can not get rid of feeling that I’m listening to the member of Politburo. Same style, same tone, same “concise” – to speak on behalf of “everybody”. She would be a perfect komissar.
Are you concerned?
I’m also concerned about absence of democracy in US. The best American people can get is to choose between two persons selected by someone else for them.
In Russia president is elected by people. Directly. From as many candidates as number of crazy guys/girls who are willing to run for the chair (Khakamada – last time, Bukovskiy and Kasparov – this show time).
So – Rice better give her Советы to her pet (if she has one). Otherwise USA might become Страной Советов very soon.
The system isn’t perfect, but it seems to work better than anything else out there
Better is relative term. To be able to compare if it’s really better or worse we’ll need same system running side by side.
I guess you are mixing size of the cars on roads with political system performance. The country that produces the biggest SUVs (to move the biggest “sport” asses?) is not automatically the best in democracy.
But my thoughts on this, including the cheap shots, are based in my opinion that American democracy (and democracy in general) is under crisis.
)
My opinion – there are no such things as free cheese and democracy
It would be good to have a crisis – as this would prove we had democracy.
PS. I can tell you how “democracy” works in the country with oldest parliament. Putin would be a little jealous…
Australia
68 years old Hovard, the leader of Liberal-national party, has been in service as Prime Minister for 11 years and will be run for the chair for the fifth time!
ivanov, I know you just want to be a provocateur be provocative, but some of your comments suggest that you don’t know much about the electoral process in either country.
I’m also concerned about absence of democracy in US. The best American people can get is to choose between two persons selected by someone else for them.
Who is the “someone else” who selects the major party candidates in the US? Oh, right, it is millions of politically active people who go vote in primaries (with a smaller number of donors also playing a role, of course, in running ads for the various contenders). The government does not play a decisive role in this process. And there are always more than two candidates in the general election – sometimes they even perform rather well, and even when they only get a few percent of the vote, that can be enough to tip the two-party contest one way or the other. Anyway, neither the use of primaries to select the major-party candidates nor the current dominance of two major parties is perfect, but there is at least some diversity of opinion and a realistic chance for a change in the ruling party in every election.
In Russia president is elected by people. Directly. From as many candidates as number of crazy guys/girls who are willing to run for the chair (Khakamada – last time, Bukovskiy and Kasparov – this show time).
Not exactly. The requirement of two million signatures spread across the RF is a very significant obstacle for potential candidates not having the backing of a major party. You can read up on the requirements here.
And it looks like people are less and less willing to trust election results in Russia (though after the 2000 Florida debacle, the same may be true in the US).
Anyway, you probably know all of this but were just trying to be funny. In that case, sorry for such a развёрнутый response.
As for SUVs and “sport asses,” I guess I could try to come up with some “witty,” similarly stereotype-based retort about the combination of Ladas and drunks making for the deadliest highways in the world, but I’m not feeling that creative.
Hmmm, I guess the tag doesn’t work in this comments section. I wanted to “cross out” the phrase “be a provocateur” for comic effect, but alas… thwarted by technology.
“Yeah I may bash on the Republicans, and Bush in particular, a lot, but I have a deep, deep contempt for the Democrats. So deep that I can’t even express it civil discourse.”
****
Could be Alexander Cockburn. The exception being that he often sees it in more of an American liberal versus conservative clash, where the two thought processes are reasonably well represented in both parties. Some others and himself view the American neocons and neolibs as slightly off versions of the liberal and conservative versions. The neocons and neolibs have a good share of influence with American political decision making.
“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Putin told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
“I think there is too much concentration of power in the White House. I have told the Americans that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Congress,” said Putin, referring to the US parliament”.
There really is not much to quarrel with in this version either.
Lyndon, “at the end of the day, Bush will be gone in 2008, and even if another Republican replaces him, there will be a house-cleaning in the Executive Branch. All of the major jobs will turn over. I agree that Bush has dragged many American values through the mud during his time in office, but happily the system is stronger than one man.”
I agree. If Putin continues keep a amount of power in his hands after his presidential term expires in 2008, I have one major concern, and someone please do not hesitate to call me out if I am completely off the mark. (And pardon me if I make another parallel to politics in the US, but it is the best I can come up with). I understand how high Putin’s ratings are in Russia. Take for example George Bush. His re-election was relatively popular, and his ratings have dropped drastically since he has done a lot to fuck up since then. The same thing happened to Bill Clinton during his 2nd term. Basically, what I am trying to say, is that if Putin continues to hold onto so much power, is there some concern that he will just take the rope and hang himself with it? Then what?
Agreed the great virtue of electoral democracy is that it allows for peaceful change. However in the form of proportional representation it can also lead to paralysis. It also leaves poor unstable countries wide open to foreign interference. Bribery of one sort or another is so easy when the people are so poor. It was the late Che Guevara who warned Castro against allowing the development of a democratic system in Cuba after seeing how easily the United States overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954 because it upset the US banana interests.
The line taken by Putin on democracy is not backsliding, it is backtracking. Like de Gaulle in France in 1958 he came to the conclusion that the centre had to be strengthened to end the chaos. He thinks that unbridled democracy is not likely to lead to the greatest good of the greatest number. His policy is somewhere between de Gaulle and the Chinese who have also favoured economic over democratic development. De Gaulle, who was a genuine democrat said once, talking about Morocco: -
“All democracies are more or less fragile. Not every body can afford the luxury of a fragile system of government. What matters is that the government is legitimate, in that it reflects the deeper feelings of the people. Democracy and legitimacy do not always go hand in hand”.
By that definition Putin is clearly legitimate. Whether he is wise, from his own point of view, to consider staying on in one form or another is open to doubt. On the other hand if I were a Russian I would beg him to stay.
Condoleezza Rice, the former Chevron Oil director (think Burma pipelines, slave labour and Iraq food for oil corruption) is badly placed as an ambassador for democracy in Russia.
“Condoleezza Rice, the former Chevron Oil director (think Burma pipelines, slave labour and Iraq food for oil corruption) is badly placed as an ambassador for democracy in Russia.”
****
Overall, she doesn’t seem to be one who challenges the questionable thinking dominating the scene. Instead, playing the role of a “team player” willing to go along with the prevailing view.
Lyndon wrote:
The requirement of two million signatures spread across the RF is a very significant obstacle for potential candidates
If a person/party can not get two million just signatures (not voters) – how are they going to manage one hundred fifty millions?
This is an excuse but not the reason for the failure.
PS. Sorry for “sport asses” but I couldn’t stop laughing when hear Sport Vehicles when see F-350 TRUCK that moves one ass from point A to point B.
Ivanov, perhaps the mystery has been solved already (I didn’t check), but are you in Iceland? Asking this while reading Njal’s Saga (in English).
“ivanov, I know you just want to be a provocateur be provocative, but some of your comments suggest that you don’t know much about the electoral process in either country.”
I think ivanov is trying to refer to the electoral college without realizing that US is a federation and each state determines for itself how they participate in electing presidents of the federation.
Condoleezza Rice, the former Chevron Oil director (think Burma pipelines, slave labour and Iraq food for oil corruption) is badly placed as an ambassador for democracy in Russia.
I think its probably wise not to bring up the subject of the Iraqi oil for food corruption when chastising the Yanks for what they say to the Russians. I’m sure the Russians kept pretty quiet about it during Condi’s visit too.
I think its probably wise not to bring up the subject of the Iraqi oil for food corruption when chastising the Yanks for what they say to the Russians. I’m sure the Russians kept pretty quiet about it during Condi’s visit too.
When I was in Russia in 2005, I remember asking everybody I knew if they had heard anything about it. Only one person said he had. He was/is pretty highly positioned in NTV, but by the way he said it, I suspected he actually had not. Everyone else (including other people in the media, like a director of a TV channel in St. Pete, etc) had never heard of the oil for food scandal by then.
Have we ever seen any attempt to view Russia through U.S. partisan debates to do anything but fail? Given that we see both exaggerated criticisms of Russia from the U.S. left and right, as well as clumsy, poorly reasoned support of VP from others in the same camps – I think we’re dealing with a distortion effect.
Indirectly related to what Cyrill wrote about most Russians being unaware of the food for oil scandal simply because the Russia media did very little reporting on it, what do you guys think of the following piece?
“Name dropping, Russian style”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/news/edshlapen.php
Is the author of the piece on to something, even if he exaggerates a bit (and I cannot say whether he is or ins’t)?
I doubt there is a grand plan of any kind. The people that run Russia right now are interested in preserving their riches and access to more riches so they can keep corny parties with caviar and gypsies.
Once again, I would like to point to a strange idiosyncrasy in “analyzing” Russia. It is hardly a paragon of efficiency and performance on any level of management and production. However, there are two entities that somehow are miraculously exempt from the general plague of incompetence or at least mismanagement: “The KGB/FSB” and “The Kremlin” – whatever that means. These two supposedly work with demonic precision and SNAFU is not in their vocabulary. They never make mistakes or botch assassinations in London. They concoct devious plans and flawlessly take them to fruition.
Someone has already mentioned Hanlon’s Razor – never ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity or incompetence.
If there is a black list, it will unlikely be ideologically based – kill all liberals – it will be a payback or a contract and it will not be centralized: every little administrator will have one. We had something just like that at the radio station I have a show on. A local Sheriff (dumb move) got tired of one of the hosts constantly badmouthing him, so he tried to threaten the station with repercussions if it keeps the guy on the air. Well, the end result of the First Amendment law suit was sheriff’s resignation and a cash settlement with the county.
What I saw with Soloviev’s TV shows on NTV – he has no problems inviting SPS people including Yavlinsky or Kasparov – who are their own enemies.
And let’s not forget that leaders that limit their population’ access to information and analysis are no different from them and end up having a very limited perspective. For all intends and purposes even if these black lists exist, they are not devilish plans to remove liberals, and install tyranny. They exist to protect the country they are designed for the betterment of the country. Naturally this is a result of incompetence rather then a grand design – and the circle is now complete.
Thanks, Cyrill. Makes sense. Do you have any comments, though, on what the author of the piece said about the sociologists?
No, Kolya, I don’t. I do not know if this is true or not. I know there was an attempt to push a new version of history to be taught in school but it did not go too smoothly.
If a person/party can not get two million just signatures (not voters) – how are they going to manage one hundred fifty millions?
This is an excuse but not the reason for the failure.
ivanov, sorry but I don’t agree. Here are the details of the requirements for candidates from parties not represented in the Duma:
* Other legally registered parties may nominate candidates by collecting 2 million signatures from an electorate of approximately 100 million. No more than seven percent of these signatures can be from any one of the 89 regions of the Federation. The credentials of the party, the candidate and the validity of the signatures are all subject to confirmation by the Central Electoral Commission.
* A candidate who wants to stand as an independent must register a Supporters’ Group with the Central Electoral Commission within 20 days of the formal announcement of the election and then, after the Central Electoral Commission has approved the Supporters’ Group and confirmed the eligibility of the candidate, secure 2 million signatures on a nomination petition and have his or her candidacy confirmed by the Central Electoral Commission.
The requirement that the signatures be from at least 14 regions (since no more than 7% can be from any one region) is onerous for smaller parties which might be popular in the major urban areas but not have nationwide networks. In any event, the requirement certainly contradicts your initial argument that anyone can run for President in Russia – it’s more like anyone who can somehow organize 2m signatures all across Russia and then get the new Veshnyakov-less, Kremlin-friendly CEC to validate them.
PS. Sorry for “sport asses” but I couldn’t stop laughing when hear Sport Vehicles when see F-350 TRUCK that moves one ass from point A to point B.
Fair enough – the SUV infatuation among people who for whom off-road driving is the gravel parking lot at their kids’ soccer game is indeed a bit absurd. Strictly speaking, though, I think the F-350 is not considered an SUV, but rather a pickup truck.
ivanov, I’m going to throw my guess into the mix – are you perhaps one of the many Russians who has relocated to “foggy Albion”?
Cyrill, my impression was that the revisionist history project is full steam ahead, in spite of the scandal it caused over the summer.
Whoops, I screwed up the italics – that long paragraph which turned out italicized is actually my own words; the two preceding paras (bulleted with the “*”) are quoted from the Russia Votes website. That’ll teach me to play around with the fancy formatting…
“They never make mistakes or botch assassinations in London.”
Talk about begging the question. By this logic, I can blame Litvinenko’s death on Berezovsky, MI6, Washington, or the Mossad. Or Sean. Or my grandma.
Yes, it was my grandma. She had much to gain.
Hell, by that logic I could blame Litvinenko’s death on Litvinenko.
For people never make mistakes in transporting poisonous substances, or commit suicide in order to attract attention to themselves.
Paging Ira Straus with his “Syrian disease”/Kirov references on the subject.
I’m old friend of Russians who write movie picture,pop,rock years ago but Democraty evolution don’t mind over filling whit the story change.I don’t in the just opinion use done of investimen money all Democratic one-line american,that is problem into commerce and not absolute will new story Nobel paece total government for Democraty people of order.It’s friendly everyone free vote and I don’t mind who American hard over Russians,ago.