On its website, the radio station Ekho Moskvy features a letter from Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the upcoming Duma elections. Khodorkovsky’s letter was in response to one sent to him from a ZheZhe user newreft. A translation of Khodorkovsky’s response follows.
Thank you for the letter. I understand and share your opinion in regard to the elections. They (the elections) will obviously be a predictable victory for ER [United Russia]. Moreover, ER with its satellites will gain a constitutional majority in the Duma, but the chances are that the liberal parties will not completely collapse.
Such is the present political reality.
Does this mean that isn’t necessary to vote at all?
I know Kasyanov in particular holds such an opinion but I cannot agree with him on this question.
The bureaucracy, and today it is exactly our main opponent, feels fine in social apathy. For it this is a confirmation of its monopolistic right to rule the country according to its own discretion. That is to say that the readiness of the citizen to give his vote, his fate to a far off bureaucrat (chinovnik) testifies in their eyes to the utter uselessness of taking the people’s opinion into consideration.
That is, who votes “with their feet”, still to a large degree is who votes for ER, and encourages the bureaucratic class toward despotism and contempt for the “herd.”
Therefore it is imperative that you vote not for those who evoke contempt, it’s better to vote for any of the small parties. This will be Your own clear and personal gesture: I am a citizen, I have the right to vote and will, I am not a slave and I am not cattle.
Sincerely,
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
{ 11 comments }
The commenters here are a cynical crowd and Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a loaded name. However, if you ignore who wrote the letter and just judge it according to its merits, are there any valid criticisms to it?
Nope, not a slave, not cattle — just a Mafia Don. Blech. I think I must off to the bathroom. Ah, that feels better,
I see I did not address Kolya’s point.
Well – I might offer the same advice even to disillusioned American voters. Better to vote for a minority candidate than to vote with your feet.
I myself voted for Perot in 1992. George H. W. Bush pissed me off when he came to my state claiming there was no recession. I had just been laid off myself, so damned if I was going to agree with him.
Khodorkovsky’s suggestion is exactly how many left-liberals and leftist think in the US. We know that a Dem or a Rep will win, and there isn’t much difference between the two so you might as well vote for Nader or someone like that. The same for Congressional races.
I also agree with Kolya. I posted the letter as a discussion piece not out of any support for Khodor. I do however endorse his suggestion. Perhaps the cynicism here is too powerful.
Oh, the idea of a former billionaire super-Mafia guy, who spent the 90s pissing on people, the ultimate elitist, now telling people not to be part of the “herd” he was then busy pissing on — it’s something, you know. Sort of like when Chubais, the guy that created the oligarchy and refered to ordinary people as “lumpen,” said that Russia’s current economic model shouldn’t be sustained because it was increasing economic inequality. Jesus Christ.
The Russian and American political situations are apples and oranges.
In Russia you have one party that will take an overwhelming majority of the votes, at least according to all the current trends and predictions. If that party’s platform doesn’t agree with you at all, then one is best off taking Khodorkovsky’s advice an making an symbolic vote of conscience. It won’t do any good as far as influencing gov’t policy but it will at least let you sleep better at night. Best case scenario, one of the smaller liberal parties will stand out above the rest in the voting, lending it more credibility in the future and allowing it to better create a coalition of liberal voters.
In the US, you have two parties that have pretty even support (maybe not much though) among the voting population. Each party leans more to one side of the political spectrum than the other. The politicians and platforms of both parties are generally too moderate for most of the people who take an active interest in government, leading to the frustration many policy wonks feel. However, this two party system has one major advantage, it keeps the kooks and hardliners from both sides out in the cold. For either party to get a majority of the votes it must play to the center, not to the fringes, unlike in a parliamentary system. A candidate that tries to court the vote of a militia member, KKK member, ANSWER/Code Pink member, 9/11 truther, etc. is not going to win the election. As a result, in the US, if the political system is working properly, your vote will always be for the lesser of two evils. However, if you take an active interest in politics and find yourself voting for someone that is a perfect fit, be afraid, very very afraid. That person should not be in a position of power. Government is no place for idealists.
Total non-sequitor. Is this right – 5,087 spam comments blocked?
Government is no place for idealists? Damn, I guess we are cynics.
then one is best off taking Khodorkovsky’s advice an making an symbolic vote of conscience. It won’t do any good as far as influencing gov’t policy but it will at least let you sleep better at night.
Wrong conclusion I think.
let’s say that 60% of all voters drag their asses to voting booth. For the party to win there should be 30% plus 1 vote (more than 50% of total voted).
So if so called combined “opposition” or whatever could get just extra 10% to make the total 70% turnover – then “ruling” party won’t get majority (or get their president elected).
And it’s really funny to hear such “advice” from Khodor. He went all the way down to get to this “idea”
))
For the last 15 or so years I’ve been telling to all my “ooponents” – “Don’t complain! Move your ass and vote, asshole!” And I’m still free
PS. If “ooposition” could get 25-30% – this would do some good. But they won’t because they are already complaining, complaining, complaining…. So why should I vote for assholes?
If “ooposition” could get 25-30% – this would do some good. But they won’t because they are already complaining, complaining, complaining…. So why should I vote for assholes?
You’re approaching it as someone who supports the majority party. The advice is for someone who is considering not voting because they aren’t interested in the majority party.
Then it makes perfect sense to at least get out and vote, rather than stay at home. Politicians notice things like the opposition getting much bigger numbers than expected, and much higher voter turn-out than expected.
In democratic society, this tends to get the attention of the nimrods who remain in power, as they are afraid of getting turned out on their asses the next time elections are held.
So, you can at least influence the actions of those politicians in power through voicing a dissenting opinion, rather than expressing absolutely no opinion at all, and providing silent consent.
Shedd.
This is exactly what I’m telling all these “liverals”.
But instead of voting – they just complaining about this and that.
PS. I’m not voting for the “majority party of assholes”
))
But I will vote for total turnover. Because it might be that +1 vote that turns everything upside down, right?
Ivanov,
Is this complaining coupled with passivity or is it simply the complaining and bitching that is typical of democratic political life? Whining and complaining in itself, as annoying as it can be, is part of parcel of any electorate and any election–whether it is in the the US, Israel, France, India, or whatever. If the complaining is accompanied with passivity, then, of course, the complainers don’t have much to stand on.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }