Electoral Specters
By Sean at 21 November, 2007, 9:32 am
There is a specter haunting Russia–the specter of colored revolution. Or so says Vladimir Putin. Clearly having no qualms about beating a dead horse, Putin told a Moscow campaign rally that shadowy Westerners are supporting oppositionists with hopes of returning Russia to the dark days of the 1990s. Here some quotes the Guardian has supplied:
“Unfortunately there are those people in our country who still slink through foreign embassies … who count on the support of foreign funds and governments but not the support of their own people.”
“There are those confronting us, who do not want us to carry out our plans because they have … a different view of Russia. They need a weak and feeble state. They need a disorganized and disorientated society … so that they can carry out their dirty tricks behind its back.”
“They are going to take to the streets. They have learned from western experts and have received some training in neighboring [former Soviet] republics. Now they are going to start provocations here.”
On the one hand, I get the hyperbolic pontificating. Much of electoral politics is about conjuring a bogeyman in hopes to scare the public into voting for you. And inciting public panic over orange clad revolutionaries, “islamo-fascists,” immigrants, homosexuals etc works well to mobilize voters. Demonizing the Other and then linking your opposition to it is a proven political tactic.
On the other hand, I can’t help chuckle at the Putin and United Russia’s excesses. First they ensured that the OSCE pull out of monitoring the elections. Limiting the number of observers, stalling visas, and placing restrictions on observers made the OSCE cancel their plans. Now Russian Electoral Commission chief Vladimir Churov claims that OSCE’s decision was their own, or more specifically the decision of the United States, which he says controls its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, or ODIHR. Again more bogeymen.
Plus Churov was quick to note that while the OSCE bowed out, other election monitoring organizations didn’t. Russia’s Duma elections will be “observed” by 300 monitors from Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Commonwealth of Independent States. That’s about 25 observers per Russian time zone.
All of this points to the Russian propensity to overstate their efforts. The truth of the matter is that Russia can be flooded with election monitors and United Russia would still win. Even if the United Russia parliamentary margin will be less that desired, “Plan Putin” still maintains hegemony over Russian politics. No opposition party in real contention seeks to radically change course. Even the Communists are acclimated themselves to Putin’s Russia.
Sure, there may be something to Kremlin’s claim that they don’t need their elections verified by anyone and that sovereignty means not succumbing to outside meddling. But what all of this rhetorical and bureaucratic maneuvering really says to me is that Russia still hasn’t learned the democratic game. First, the game requires using money and advertising not so much to pummel your opponent, but control the boundaries of political discourse. The former is well done, the latter not so much. Here they might want to sneak a peak at the American Republican Party’s play book. They are masters at it. Second, the game requires the adept use of the law to mask corruption with good legal arguments. Lawyers have a knack for making something clearly illegal appear perfectly within the boundaries of the law. Postmodern politics have made armies of lawyers much more effective than detachments of police. Lastly, the game requires challenging anyone who criticizes you to do something about it. Yes, one aspect of sovereignty is about preventing meddling. But real sovereignty is when you have the confidence and fortitude to just ignore whatever critical salvos tossed at you.
So in the end, Russia should have let the OSCE come and monitor. And when the OSCE would make the inevitable cries of foul, Russia should just shrug its shoulders and promise to better next time. That’s what any other real democracy would do.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by Global Voices Online » Russia: Pre-Election “Excesses” on November 21, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“So in the end, Russia should have let the OSCE come and monitor. And when the OSCE would make the inevitable cries of foul, Russia should just shrug its shoulders and promise to better next time. That’s what any other real democracy would do”.
As I understand it the real aim of the Russian government is to change the way that election monitoring is conducted by OSCE so that the number of monitors, amongst other things, is governed by agreement in advance and not à la carte depending on whether a particular government is in favour with the “international community” a.k.a. the United States and friends. It is part of a wider aim to win a level playing field in the democratic debate. The grotesque Western pampering of Georgia compared with the treatment of Russia and Belarus concerns them as does the gentle treatment of the Balkan states on human rights. Some serious electoral monitoring in the US would not displease them either. It has not gone unnoticed in Moscow that Gordon Brown’s Britain holds the world gold medal for democratic bullshit. He came to power because the Queen, advised by Tony Blair thought it would be nice, with not an elector in sight. They are also conducting a pre-emptive strike against some of the more subtle regime change techniques of recent years notably the exit poll that is rushed out before the actual result to discredit the election.
Let us be realistic, it will be a long time before anybody can sell inflation to the Germans or uncontrolled Western style democracy to the Russians. After all democracy ought not to be a religion but a means to an end – the long term benefit of the people. Currently Western democracy, or the “democratic game” as you call it, has only one real merit. At the moment in a stable society it permits a change of government without violence. Russia’s weakness is that it pays lip service to democratic ideals that for justifiable reasons it does not actually subscribe to. Better by far to be like the Chinese and face the truth and tell the Western hypocrites to eff off and mind their own business.
For Balkan read Baltic above!
Let us be realistic, it will be a long time before anybody can sell inflation to the Germans or uncontrolled Western style democracy to the Russians.
Rusia never had “uncontrolled Western style democracy”. I am altogether unclear on the “uncontrolled” part but western democracies are based on and are guaranteed by private property of means of production. Russia never had much of it yet, since it is still unclear where in many cases does the state end and private property begins. Russia did not buy “uncontrolled western style democracy” in 1990-s. It borrowed an idea, proceeded to corrupt it and now claims it did not work. It was not democracy that had not worked in Russia.
Currently Western democracy, or the “democratic game” as you call it, has only one real merit. At the moment in a stable society it permits a change of government without violence.
After living in the USSR, having looked out through the holes in the barbed wire fence, it is quite funny to see leftists in the West for whom democracy is nothing but a game or a facade. What you menion is not a sole merit, it is a possible measure of how advanced democracy is. Mexico just had the first case of “former” president that is not in exile (home or abroad) or in jail or isn’t dead. Russia has ways to go before it can catch up with Mexico. There are other minor and insignificant merits of democracy you might have missed while watching it as a game: freedom of speech might be one of them.
It has not gone unnoticed in Moscow that Gordon Brown’s Britain holds the world gold medal for democratic bullshit. He came to power because the Queen, advised by Tony Blair thought it would be nice, with not an elector in sight.
Gordon Brown came to power because he became the leader of the party which won the last General Election. In the UK, the electorate do not vote for the Prime Minister, they vote for the party of government. The party of government then choose who from their ranks will be Prime Minister, usually the party leader. The party is free to change their leader at any point, and free to change Prime Minster at any point. Most people in the UK understand this basic principle, even if Muscovites don’t.
The party is free to change their leader at any point, and free to change Prime Minster at any point. Most people in the UK understand this basic principle, even if Muscovites don’t.
It is interesting that every Briton I have talked to about this replies exactly as above in suitably pitying tones for my lack of comprehension of how a model democracy works.
Having lived for some years within the division bell area and briefly worked in the House of Commons I am aware of how the British system operates. This in no way changes my view that it is grossly undemocratic for Tony Blair and the Queen to decide who the Prime Minister shall be even if he is the leader of the Labour Party. A modern democracy should have at its head a leader who has been elected by a majority of the voters like Sarkozy in France or dare I say it … Putin in Russia? I would not of course go so far as to suggest becoming like Bush in the United States.
As the great Scottish customs officer wrote “Oh, would that some power would give us the gift to see ourselves as others see us.”
In which connection I strongly recommend the comparison of Soviet and Western press coverage and justification of their respective invasions of Afghanistan by Nikolai Lanine and Media Lens. The similarity is eerie. http://www.medialens.org/ They start of quoting Pilger’s story “The writer Simon Louvish once told the story of a group of Soviets touring the United States before the age of glasnost. After reading the newspapers and watching TV, they were amazed to find that, on the big issues, all the opinions were the same. “In our country,” they said, “to get that result we have a dictatorship, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. So what’s your secret? How do you do it?”
After reading the newspapers and watching TV, they were amazed to find that, on the big issues, all the opinions were the same. “In our country,” they said, “to get that result we have a dictatorship, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. So what’s your secret? How do you do it?”
Due to my profession as a Russian-English interpreter I encounter this “view” very often. It has the easiest of explanations – these people do not know enough to make global generalizations. Ability to generalize on extremely low sampling rate seems to be a commmon trait among Russians. These are the same people that would buy the cheapest beer or bread and then complain that there is no good beer or decent bread in the US.
“Ability to generalize on extremely low sampling rate seems to be a commmon trait among Russians.”
Let me fix this for you:
“Ability to generalize on extremely low sampling rate seems to be a commmon trait among people.”
I said what I said and there is no need for fixing, unless you really want to put words in my mouth I did not intend to say. My experience with Russian and US cultures suggests this trait is more common among Russians and it is easily explained: fewer information sources. Naturally, those in the US that voluntarily limit their information sources, behave in a similar fashion.
I agree with Cyrill’s last comment. Probably for some of the same reasons, I think that in terms of percentages more Russians than Americans are prone to believe conspiracy theories. Of course, this does not mean that the US does not have its share of folks who seriously believe in absurd conspiracy myths. I guess it’s part of the human condition that a certain proportion of the population {regardless of access to information} have the “sklad uma” to fall for such things. It seems, though, that under certain societal conditions such things become more common.
“I guess it’s part of the human condition that a certain proportion of the population {regardless of access to information} have the “sklad uma” to fall for such things.”
However things get really complicated when quite sensible people discover that their wildest imaginings are true and that practically nothing that people they once trusted tell them is true.
If as a journalist you had tried to write the truth about the sinking of the USS Liberty, as we now know it, who would have believed you at the time and what would your job prospects have been?
Robert, I get your point. Moreover, sometimes even a paranoid can be right. As the joke goes, the fact that you are paranoid does not mean that you are not being followed. A stopped watch is correct twice a day. Nonetheless, although there are no guarantees, odds are that the non-paranoid has a better grip on reality or that we will make it on time if we rely on a working watch.