Predictable Responses to Predictable Results
By Sean at 4 December, 2007, 2:31 pm
The only thing more predictable than United Russia’s victory on Sunday, is the West’s virtually unanimous condemnation of the elections. A spokesman from the German government called them “Neither a free, fair nor democratic election.” The Swedish forgien minister said Russia is a “steered democracy.” A European observer call them “not a level playing field.” U.S. President Bush gave Putin no congradulations, instead making one of his typical responses, “I said we were sincere in our expressions of concern about the elections.” I think it’s time to start translating Washington’s newspeak “expressions of concern” as “We don’t give a shit but I have to say something.” The only Western leader who broke step was France’s Nicholas Sarkozy. In a phone call to Putin, Sarkozy congratulated Putin on United Russia’s victory.
As a whole, however, the post-election reporting is so uniform that the only thing that reporters seemed to prove is that they are somewhat adept at using a thesaurus.
Just take a look at some of the headlines:
The LA Times: “Russian Elections Called a Sham“
The NY Times: “A Tale of Two Strongmen“
The Guardian: “A Managed Election“
The Wall Street Journal: “The Allure of Tyranny“
The Washington Post: “In Russia, the Backward March to Czarism Continues“
No need to read them. I think you get the picture from the headlines. Most intriguing, however, is how the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times lump Putin and Venuzela’s Hugo Chavez into the same bunch: strongmen and tyranny. And in a turnabout, the NY Times writes, “Who would have ever thought that Mr. Chávez could seem more palatable than Mr. Putin, who has the stamp of international respectability as a member of the group of leading industrialized nations? The United States and Europe must let Mr. Putin know that his days of respectability are fast running out.”
The Wall Street Journal even waxed a bit philosophical in its attempt to explain why the Putins and Chavezes of the world have a certain “allure.” To this, Bret Stephens writes that the desire for tyranny “springs from sources deep within ourselves: the yearning for a politics without contradictions; the terror inscribed in the act of choice.” Wow. The WSJ better watch out because it might start sounding like pomo-kings Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. “Everyone wants to be a fascist” the latter claimed in an essay of that title in 1977.
The greater irony of the Stephens’ statement that people have a “yearning for a politics without contradictions” and immobilized by “the terror inscribed in the act of choice” is that this is clearly the case for most Western reporters and politicians in regard to Russia. For them Russia is truly a place without contradiction. It has no mixture. No complexity. It’s politics can only be understood via its reduction. The Kremlin has made a great effort to make Russians think that Putin = Russia. That he is its alpha and omega. In a strange many reports think this too. It’s just that the Western media’s evaluation of Russia is merely the black to the Kremlin’s white. If Putin really rules by an “elaborate hoax” as Stephens claims, then West’s unanimous inversion of it proves that they too have been dazzled by Putin’s trickery. Perhaps many reporters’ inability to understand Russia on its own terms is also an example of “the terror inscribed in the act of choice.”
Nevertheless, there were two comments that dared to veer away from the predictable. First a commentary in the Independent by Mary Dejevsky and the second an opinion by Tony Koron in Time Magazine, of all places. Dejevsky dares to remind her readers that:
[T]he implications of Sunday’s elections may be rather different from those drawn by an international consensus that habitually presupposes the worst. If the elections were, as they were bound to be, a referendum on Putin’s eight years in power, the judgment was strongly positive.
But given Russia’s strong economic indicators, Putin’s undisputed personal popularity, and the sense of national dignity his presidency has helped to restore, the result was unlikely to be otherwise. A strong swing against Putin would have been more suspicious than the vote of confidence United Russia obtained. The elections may not have been as free, and certainly not as fair, as they should have been, but the result is not out of line with Russia’s public mood.
She also suggests that most commentators obsession with apocalyptic visions of “Tsar” Putin have missed the real and unfortunate story: the Russian political process has become ossified. As she rightly points out, United Russia’s victory was no more victorious than in 2003. Further, the far-right and far-left have dropped from the political scene leaving Russian politics the domain of the political center. “The parties represented in the new Duma, and their leaders, will be essentially those that have dominated the past decade of Russian politics.” So while those commentators who wish there to be an electoral revolution with every poll may stomp their feet in frustration, Russians can now breath easy. The post-Soviet “Time of Troubles” is now officially over.
It is this victory for stability that makes Tony Koron’s piece in Time so interesting. Putin has been compared to a lot of things, most of them being the vile villains of History (this is despite the fact that Putin sees himself as a Russian Franklin Roosevelt). But Koron likens Putin to another master of American politics: Ronald Reagan. There is no doubt that comparing Putin to American conservatives’ demigod will make them shutter. But hear Koron out:
The explanation for Putin’s popularity may be found in certain similarities to the man often credited with helping to bring down the Soviet Union. It’s not that the former KGB man has any policy preferences or even a political style in common with Ronald Reagan, the great icon of contemporary American conservatism. But in the sense that he has made Russians feel good once again about their country, his appeal is Reaganesque.
Reagan’s own popularity — even among many Democrats — owed less to his specific policies (tax cuts, arms buildup) than to his overall success in restoring Americans’ national pride and optimism. If the Carter era had been associated with domestic economic woes and a string of geopolitical defeats that culminated in the Iran hostage crisis, Reagan managed, almost as soon as he took office, to convince the public that a new “morning in America” had broken, by getting tough with U.S. adversaries on the global stage.
Talk about the things that make you go, “Hmmm . . .”
Popularity: 7% [?]
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by Global Voices Online » Russia: Western Media Response to the Election on December 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sean, you have been doing a great job these past weeks, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions. The Reagan analogy makes good sense, I’ve actually been meaning for some time to do a video-based post riffing on those EdRo ads you posted a few days ago – they are fine as far as they go, but they are nowhere near as good as the best Putinist ads I’ve seen – the ones from Megafon’s “the future depends on you” campaign a couple of years ago. It’s all about a country feeling young and dynamic again, just like in Reagan’s famous “morning again in America” ad.
By the way, the Reagan analogy also shows how fragile stability can be – remember how the country drifted under Bush 41, who was then cast out of office? It didn’t take more than a couple of years, and the stability in Russia is much more fragile than the US’s in the 1980s; sadly, I think we can all agree that a botched succession in Russia would be far more destabilizing and unpredictable.
Anyway, between now and March is where it gets really interesting.
Really Sean, I dunno. The MT today printed a lot of comments by “Western” leaders and most of them were of the “this shows Putin’s program has popular approval” variety. In Finland especially.
I think maybe, maybe, maybe you’re equating “the West” with “the English-language media.”
Sean, you have been doing a great job these past weeks, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions.
Thanks Lyndon. If you did (or anyone) always agreed with my conclusions, then I would be something really wrong. (Especially in terms of some of my half baked ideas on democracy.
)
But you are correct about the Reagan comparison. Things can go bad quickly, especially in the volatile world of global capital. As a friend just told me, the real issue will be how United Russia builds any real political structure independent of Putin or any personality. As I’ve said before, Putin is both the very strength and the weakness of the system he created.
But yes a botched succession is the real test. And while I’m still not sure that Putin will stay on as President, I think him staying on in some capacity (as PM for example) will provide some continuity and even a measure of stability. Some might say that Putin sticking around might be objectively bad for Russian democracy, but the negative impact objective factors can make have a much longer lag time than subjective ones (though more ruinous over the long term). Many have speculated about the nightmare scenario is Putin sticks around. My question is maybe it might be worth thinking about the potential nightmare scenario if he doesn’t.
I think maybe, maybe, maybe you’re equating “the West” with “the English-language media.”
I’ve been known to conflate the two. Either that or I’m going through some kinda strange Averko withdrawal. You can’t blame a guy who needs a fix. Just gimme a taste, man. Just a taste.
I think maybe, maybe, maybe you’re equating “the West” with “the English-language media.”
How many languages do you expect us to speak?
I think the fact is, the “English-language media” is picking commentary from Europe that is questioning the validity of the Russian elections, and likely the Russian news media is cherry-picking their commentary from Europe as well.
Katja expressed the opinion today that now that the Duma elections are complete, Putin will resign from the presidency for at least 3 months so that he can legally be elected president in March.
I expressed the opinion that this would only work if someone else were the president during the months after his resignation, as I believe the Russian constitution says something about “three consecutive terms” as president.
In any case, it’s time to see what this big plan was about – because just maintaining the status quo doesn’t seem too clever.
By the way, it isn’t just the native English speaking media that is down on the Russian election results. Consider the headlines on Spiegel.de:
‘The West Must Distance Itself from Putin’s Swindle’
‘Nothing to Do With Democracy’
‘OSCE Slams ‘Unfair’ Russian Election’
‘Riding the Cronies to Victory’
‘Nothing Will Be Left to Chance’
VVP is referred to as Vladimir Superman Putin.
In German, it’s no better.
“Die Wahlen als Ausnahmezustand”
“Schmutzig”, “widerrechtlich”, “undemokratisch” – viele russische Zeitungen üben heftige Kritik am Verlauf der Parlamentswahlen. Durch das Wahlergebnis verfüge Putin nun über fantastischen Möglichkeiten.
Which translates roughly as:
“The elections as a state of emergency”
“Dirty”, “illegally”, “undemocratic”, many Russian newspapers practice fierce criticism of the course of the parliamentary elections. The election results for Putin now has fantastic possibilities.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,521280,00.html
From reading that, you get the impression that the Russian news media is outraged at the results of the Duma elections.
To be quite honest, now that I’m digging into these German headlines, they are much much more negative towards the Russian elections than anything I’ve read in the English language media. Even my rusty Deutsch can translate stuff like “Putin wird Super-Oligarch” or “Putins neue Supermacht: Mit Gaunern zum Sieg”
Sorry, not to beat a dead horse, but it is interesting to me that in this German language graphic summarizing the Duma results, they don’t even bother to call the party ‘United Russia’ .. it is simply ‘Putin’:
http://www.spiegel.de/flash/0,5532,16785,00.html
“Katja expressed the opinion today that now that the Duma elections are complete, Putin will resign from the presidency for at least 3 months so that he can legally be elected president in March.”
Isn’t it too late? Sean mentioned something about that the other day.
I said it on 11/28>,:
“But the big, big question is what Putin will say in his recorded address tonight. Will he resign? That’s what some think. Resignation would allow Putin to unitize a loophole in the law to run for President in March. The loophole, explains RFE/RL, is found in Article 3, Section 5 of the election law. It states that “a citizen who holds the office of president of the Russian Federation for a second consecutive term on the day of the official publication of the date of the election cannot be elected president.” If Putin resigns before the date of the Presidential election is published in Rossiiskaya gazeta, he can technically and legally run for office again. Oh, damn! It was published today. So much for that theory.”
This of course assumes that Putin will stay within the bounds of acceptable legality.
Well Wally, the Imperial Courrier of Rome and the Judean Times both had positive coverage of the event, and our blessed Emperor Augustus called Putin personally.
The MT had a list of quotes, but I can’t find it online and the print version has already fulfilled its function as emergency toilet paper. IIRC the “positive” comments were from the German foreign minister, the Finnish prime minister, some officials in Latvia (really), the president of Poland (really), and some others.
First off Mary Dejevksy is a star and I think I am in love with her. It was she that wrote prophetically on day one of the Litvinenko Affair
“I do not like spy stories outside the covers of a John le Carré novel and I never liked covering them as a reporter. I find the cloak and dagger world of espionage, with its necessary lies and subterfuge, unsettling. Any truth rests on constantly shifting sand. The borders of fact and fantasy are forever blurred. And a secret agent is precisely that: secret; a man (or woman) behind a mask, an unknown quantity of unknown loyalty. Spies who have defected I find doubly sinister: once someone has betrayed one set of loyalties, how much easier it must be to betray another.
All of which is by way of explaining why I treat all spy scandals with the deepest suspicion. It is also why the real explanation for Mr Litvinenko’s plight need not be the one set out so confidently yesterday by the predictable procession of no-longer-secret agents who are beholden to the British authorities for their freedom to speak.”
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mary_dejevsky/article1998839.ece
Secondly all unnoticed by the commentariat, whatever his future plans, Putin has, by his unorthodox electoral activities, avoided a lame duck end to his presidency.
Thirdly in the crazy world of international relations where it is possible for very clever diplomats to talk absolute rubbish and go unquestioned by equally clever journalists, has there ever been anything so comic as the Russian elections being criticised for irregularities by GWB the victor of Florida and Ohio in the expert company of the …wait for it … the Russian Communist party?
By the way, does anybody have an explanation for why the editorials in the main US papers (WSJ, Washington Post, NYT, etc.) are so attrociously written? Not only is their content pure boilerplate mindlessness, they are abominably poorly written from a stylistic point of view. Who writes them? Is it an intern?
By the way, does anybody have an explanation for why the editorials in the main US papers (WSJ, Washington Post, NYT, etc.) are so attrociously written?
I ar an Americun. I can reed real gud. I think them editoreals ar xsellant. Yu ar a reel peas of shit to say they are bad. I wil com therr an kick ur ass, cause yu ar just wrong.
America is the best an dontchu forgit it!
Right on Joe! Represent!
The MT today printed a lot of comments by “Western” leaders and most of them were of the “this shows Putin’s program has popular approval” variety. In Finland especially.
Perhaps it’s time to resurrect the concept of “Finlandization.” All that was old has become new again…
By the way, does anybody have an explanation for why the editorials in the main US papers (WSJ, Washington Post, NYT, etc.) are so attrociously written
I am trying to understand that myself. I might even dare to say they are written by recent college graduates. Even the Economist approaches that level of writing.
According to a recent article in the eXile, the people at the Economist are a lot younger than you might think (in their mid-20s). IIRC they put it as “young people trying to make you think they’re old people” or something like that.
IIRC they put it as “young people trying to make you think they’re old people” or something like that.
So then the question is where do the equally atrocious ideas come from. Are they dictated to the 20-somethings but their “older” editors and told to whip something up, or are we seeing what said 20-somethings actually see the world?
Speaking of the Economist:
Economist Plagiarizes The eXile?
December 7, 2007
We’ve Been Plagiarized Again!
The big Western media’s back to plagiarizing The eXile, this time from a most unlikely source: The Economist. Seven weeks after we published an article arguing that the real way to frame Putin’s behavior is within the savage power struggle going on between factions of the siloviki, The Economist put their moronic “Hitler Alert” tales back into their little padded cell, and came out with this suspiciously eXile-esque analysis: “Vladimir Putin did not rig the ballot to win control of parliament, but to assert his power over the Kremlin’s warring factions.” H’m, ya don’t say? Two months late is better than nuthin’…
We expect an apology like The Guardian offered us. And we want cash. Like, now.
—Mark Ames
http://www.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=15042&AUTHOR_ID=
The Economist is in freefall. In the five years I subscribed, I noticed a steady and then sharp decline in quality of its articles. Eventually I decided not to renew, and judging by others’ comments around the internet, I am not alone in this.
If the Economist is not being subsidised by the Foreign Office or the Security services,they should sue for breach of contract.
This article was written by an investor in Moscow. It is also the first I have seen in the Post that is not bashing Putin’s Russia….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120701617.html
Just thought I would point it out. Great blog, by the way.
Is Boris Jordan still close to Chubais? And what’s the relationship now between Chubais and Putin? Just curious.