Sergei Kovalev, “Open Letter to:”
By Sean at 4 March, 2008, 4:44 pm
Open letter to:
Открытое письмо:
Vladimir Putin, President of Russian Federation
Vladimir Churov, Chairman of Central Election Commission of Russian Federation
Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation
Gentlemen, I have no doubt that you are well aware that the free expression of the will of free citizens via free democratic elections can never result in 99.4% of the votes being cast for one party with a turnout of 99.5% of the voters.
Now obviously that is only impossible where there is open, transparent political competition between electoral candidates, with equal opportunities for public campaigning, where there is no administrative pressure on individuals and where one finds impeccable honesty and scrupulous accuracy from the election commissions.
Yet all these are surely the crucial conditions for democratic electoral procedure?
No need to prove to you that these very 99.4% votes “for” provide incontrovertible evidence of vote-rigging. You know that as well as I do, and as well as any remotely literate citizen with at least commonsense, not to mention a basic awareness of the nature and possibilities of the popular vote. You of course also know that such results far above 90% (i.e. the same fraud) did not happen in isolated polling stations, no, in several subjects of the Russian, if one may use the term, “Federation”. This unfortunate circumstance is more than sufficient to correctly assess the tasteless farce being played out by untalented directors on the entire boundless Russian stage on 2 December, and for good measure in the coming event on 2 March.
It is entirely redundant to tediously collect up the electoral commission protocols rewritten in retrospect, or evidence of shenanigans with ballot papers etc – it’s all clear enough anyway. The authorities (who by the way you represent, Gentlemen), mangled electoral legislation and then wantonly, with no finesse, came up with some kind of imitation of elections. In doing so they sneered at the Constitution and armed themselves with administrative resources. The simulation was not for us but for the West you so dislike.
I am not in the slightest claiming that “United Russia” would not have got into the State Duma without the rigging. For goodness sake, obviously they would have been in first place anyway. That’s quite another, also painful problem for the country.
However on another subject now. Through your deliberate efforts, Gentlemen, in a country where the democracy was only budding forth, we once again have no elections – the main criterion for a democracy. And for a long time. Not even Stalin could have dreamed of the Chechen record. In his “elections”, that sort of percentage was gained by a single candidate with no alternative. While in the present case this pathetic 0.1% was supposedly shared by virtually 10 parties.
It’s not by hearsay that we know what’s happening to a country which receives a sycophantic puppet parliament, a decorative Constitution, a justice system working to order and an uncontrolled leadership reappointing itself (like the profoundly expressive word “successor” which has sullied our political lexicon for a good 10 years). Details are hardly appropriate. It would seem that that does not frighten you and you have decided to try it yet another. Or maybe you simply don’t know anything else.
Well, the choice – conscious and well-thought-out – has undoubtedly been made –, and long ago, and I am quite well aware that I can’t stop it.
I do have a question, however: will you be able to stop if at some stage you don’t wish to follow things through to the all too familiar end?
It’s clear that the lies exuding from all your lackey screens, are powerless to hide the electoral shame. Yet despite that, you are forced to lie shamelessly and hopelessly, with arrogance and anger jumping down on any doubts (like “… let them teach their wives …”). You don’t have another choice, I mean you can’t say: “Well, we took over here, slightly corrected the results, and there they went overboard. Well don’t be too critical, it’s all though their enthusiasm and uncontrollable functionary zeal.
And in your step there are the adepts hurriedly bustling to get themselves onto the patriot register. Earlier our leaders quite often had to lie tediously and brazenly for decades, denying the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the Katyn Massacre of Polish prisoners of war, or the arrest of Wallenberg. In a word, what was obvious to all around them and now it’s you. History is unfortunately repeating itself.
The lie which you so decisively have again established in government use and which you are incapable of rejecting has an important and extremely dangerous quality – I would say a particularly corrupting force. The point is that the majority of your listeners don’t believe you, and that includes your convinced supporters. That is, they are of course pleased with “United Russia’s” victory, but they understand very well whatever you say how the mould for such a victory was set.
We have a paradoxical change – you lie, your listeners know this and you know that they don’t believe you, only pretend to believe, and yet they also know that you know they don’t believe you. Everybody knows everything. The very lie no longer aspires to deceive anyone, from being a means of fooling people it has for some reason turned into an everyday way of life, a customary and obligatory rule for living. You have a Mr Markov, supposedly a professor, supposedly a political expert, and in fact a hardened and dense cynic. Speaking with him about our “politics”, a journalist said: “lies have short legs”. “Human memory is even shorter”, was Markov’s response. Horrible, yet it would seem that this is in fact the case. Of course they’ll forget a lot about the two grubby spectacles in succession in a couple of months after 2 March. However they’ll never forget something else – that the top figures of the state lie through their teeth. And how could they forget when lying is your natural element?
This memory is catastrophic and its results irreparable because the customary lies of leaders always generate and cultivate cynicism in society and cannot achieve anything else. Whatever your people now say about freedom being better than lack of freedom, about the right to self-expression and so forth, these pompous speeches are fixedly (and fairly, by the way) perceived as a continuation of your untruth. They’re mere words. There is exactly the same attitude to the bombastic ambitiousness of your utterances about the guaranteed phenomenal and swiftest successes in all conceivable areas, matters and issues.
It would seem, however strange this may be, that for us, coming from the Stalin era, those in power also need public support. So you want to rely on cynicism? Yet cynicism is cowardice, the flight from burning problems and hard-hitting discussion. It is the lowest pragmatism, petty timeserving teetering on the verge of baseness, or having toppled over that edge. It is intrigue, preferred to competition, and a rejection of moral taboos.
Can any serious political force really base itself on such social tendencies? Well, yes, cynicism does not scorn obsequious enthusiasm. We all remember well enough the paid mobs of your “nashy”, 150 per body. So what do you expect – they’re your prop in the flamboyantly announced “innovations” and other achievements? Enough, after all you, Mr President, openly shared with us your devastating assessments of your main people – the party of power “United Russia”. What other “innovations”?
What then, do you expect with pitiful charms about “four and “to turn a mob into a creative force? Now that is foolish! From dishonesty, Gentlemen, nothing grows barring new dishonesty. On that road you have already achieved your real main goal. Publicly you name it ponderously as stability, whereas in fact its total power. Simply speaking, modernizing and improving (cynically, yet reasonably subtly one must say) Soviet ideology and political practice, you have built a political construction in Russia within which it’s impossible to win the elections.
Not even squeeze them in any way in parliament. Not even exert any noticeable political pressure. This is a blind alley that can no way lead to democracy. And gradually going back by the same path we came on is almost impossible since you are doomed to lie. As I said before, you can’t renounce the lies once spoken, or your whole system will come tumbling down.
What you are to do in this situation is of no interest to me. Most probably you’ll continue your course, perhaps on the way filling your pockets (those in the know say that you’ve long being doing this – I don’t know, I’m not an expert in this area). What the country is to do, having ended up under you, now that is the question. It is immoral and very dangerous to put up with you indefinitely. Since your present shameless “elections” are absolutely useless, we therefore need an entirely different instrument in other hands.
We don’t need “political experts” and “political technology specialists”, not economists and not politicians in the traditional sense of the word. We need intelligent, daring and extremely well-meaning leaders who instead of loud opposition noises, can create a decisive, calm, persistent and unwavering protest and not allow it to slip out from the tradition of the great peaceful Eastern European victories over despotism, to not allow bloodshed and the brown-shirt plague. This is incredibly difficult. It is much harder in Russia than it was in Poland or Czechoslovakia, harder even than in Ukraine.
Yet who promised that our life would be easy? I believe that these people will at some stage come. I see no other possibility for overcoming our shameful moral crisis.
However it’s not with you that these problems need to be discussed.
With the most sincere and unwavering lack of respect,
Sergei Kovalev
Popularity: 8% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This letter would be a lot more impressive if it weren’t so pompous. As it is, it’s almost unreadable.
Upon reflection, I think what bugs me most about the pravozashitniki is their ego. This letter reads like a rap song where Kovalov is trying to diss Putin, while declaring what a crazy human-rights-defending muthafucka the writer is. He’s come to kick ass and take names.
Piontkovsky does this too. Can you imagine, say, Chomsky writing something like this? No. Because Chomsky has a sense of dignity.
Open letter to S. Kovalyev
“Dear kamarade Kovalyev.
F…K YOURSELF
Rgds.
ivanov”
PS. I have to admit – I didn’t read Kovalev’s BS except a couple of first paragraphs.
On the other hand – why should I? He is nobody writing same BS all the time.
When I see a pile of shit on the street – I don’t need to taste it to confirm that this is shit.
And my letter is easily readable.
PS. I have to admit – I didn’t read Kovalev’s BS except a couple of first paragraphs.
On the other hand – why should I? He is nobody writing same BS all the time.
I’m happy to accept that Kovalev speaks for a minority, probably a small minority, of Russians at present. But a “nobody”? Are you out of your mind? He has devoted his life to his vision of freedom of expression and human rights, spending years in the camps for his efforts. You may disagree with his views or his tactics — as in open letters his adversaries will treat as “shit on the street” — but a “nobody” he decidedly is not.
Fh, I have no opinion about Kovalev’s sincerity one way or the other, but I do get the impression that some of the former dissidents and their current epigones have kind of gotten stuck in an ego trap in which they are role-playing a caracture of themselves (as in Elena Bonner, who I suspect is senile), similar to the way Castro has spent the last 20-odd years being the image of Fidel.
Chris – I sometimes agree, and sometimes not, with these folks. They always spoke for a minority. But that shouldn’t be used to discredit them. On a whole list of rights issues, they were idealistic where others were cynical. That’s good. Some, like Bonner, have allowed themselves to be exploited. That’s not good. But there’s no reason to demonize them as a group.
Oh, I don’t demonize them. Actually, I think highly of Roy Medvedev and Solzhenitysn (both of whom are of course pro-Putin
— I wonder what Sakharov would think were he alive today) and love Zinoviev’s novels.
I tend to find most of the pravozashitniki clueless. It’s not that what they are pointing out is per se WRONG — it is that they are fond of easy answers, or no answers, and exist in a universe in which questions of how to wield power and practicality do not exist. They have the worldview of morally outraged adolescents. Of course much the same could be said for a host of non-Russian organizations and people as well.
I think that perhaps what most exasperates me is that it is similar to the worldview I used to have, if I may say so without resorting to trite cliches about how age brings wisdom.
“He has devoted his life to his vision”
We don’t know many, many unknown men and women who devoted their lives to their visions… simply because they are locked in clinic
PS. I didn’t say he couldn’t write his open letters. What I did – I wrote my personal vision of him.
You need a prove that he is insane? Их есть у меня.
One must be out his mind to write this:
“the tradition of the great peaceful Eastern European victories over despotism”
Want more?
OK. He claims “for us, coming from the Stalin era”
But if you look at his bio – he was doing very well under Stalin.
Сергей Адамович Ковалев родился 2 марта 1930 года в г.Середина-Буда Сумской обл.(Украина), в семье железнодорожника. В 1932 г. семья Ковалева переезжает под Москву, в пос.Подлипки. В 1954 – окончил биофак МГУ. Биофизик, специалист в области нейронных сетей. Жил и работал в Москве. Опубликовал более 60 научных работ; в 1964 г. защитил диссертацию и получил ученую степень кандидата биологических наук.
The guy from poor Ukranian family, graduates the best university in Moscow, lives and works in Moscow, gets Ph.D. in 1964 etc.
He got his 7 years service in 1975 – but this is not Stalin era by any means. Otherwise he would be well dead.
My father (dob 1931) was from Stalin era. Deported with family to Far East, lost parents, graduated from school at age of 10 – he was the only man in the family, served 5 years in the army, was working all his life after “graduation”. But I can tell you – if they met I woulnd’t pay 5 копеек for Kovalev’s body.
And Chris is right – K-v expressing “vision” of very-very small minority. So small that from the point of math he is nobody.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of conditions are we talking about in a Brezhnev-era “camp”? Grueling forced labor? Relaxing country-club prison? What? I really have no idea?
And Chris is right – K-v expressing “vision” of very-very small minority. So small that from the point of math he is nobody.
Ahem. Some of us here feel they speak for extremely small minorities — such as one or another branchlet of Marxism, for instance. Others speak only for themselves.
As for Kovalev’s privileged background, I’m not inclined to hold that against him at all. The sciences have produced many rights activists, in Russia and elsewhere. In what way is that a bad thing?
Chris: They have the worldview of morally outraged adolescents.
True. I share it.
I speak for the Stuff.
But Stuffism is universal of course. You speak for everyone.
Kovalev needs to be careful around open windows & stairwells, lest one day he has an accident and is found, bloodied, a bag of oranges spilled around him.
I totally did not get that reference.
Can you imagine, say, Chomsky writing something like this? No. Because Chomsky has a sense of dignity.
Of just a better self-plagiarist. Since he’s been saying the same thing since the 1970s, he can concentrate more of his time on editing and refining his worn out message.
“The sciences have produced many rights activists, in Russia and elsewhere. In what way is that a bad thing?”
fn, this is neither bad nor good.
My point was that K-v claims to be from “Stalin era”. But looks like he was doing very well under Stalin. Does he mean he missed that era?
“Just out of curiosity, what kind of conditions are we talking about in a Brezhnev-era “camp”? Grueling forced labor? Relaxing country-club prison? What? I really have no idea?”
Just as any other prison at that time somewhere in US except bananas. But those in CCCP who were free didn’t eat them either. Well … most likely Kovalev eat them – in Moscow they had everything (like apples in winter time!)
Red Exile – What does that mean please? It’s a reference to Safronov, I guess, but is it intended as a legitimate concern? Or is it a threat?
“Since he’s been saying the same thing since the 1970s, he can concentrate more of his time on editing and refining his worn out message.”
Has the world changed that much since the 70s?
I guess my unstated point was that somebody like Chomsky would talk about the system, power relations, stuff like that, whereas Kovalev seems to think all the bad stuff is because the people in the Kremlin are teh suxxors. I suppose systematic stuff would sound to Marxist.
Re prisons: Just as any other prison at that time somewhere in US except bananas.
I take it this means you have no f-ing idea? Could you possibly just say so instead of trying to make childish jokes? Article 70 imprisonment was a serious matter, regardless what you might think of the cause behind the dissent.
ivanov,
Can you please explain why would your father beat up Kovalev to a pulp on sight? Is it because Kovalev is wearing glasses, or somesuch? Was your father one of those grunting Soviet beasts of burden, whose only pastime was to get plastered and go beat up ‘intelligentsia’? And what is your own favorite pastime?
fn, I admit I have rather little idea about US prisons of the 70s.
But Soviet zones are practically same from Stalin era through our days.
When in zone it doesn’t matter what article you have. Only matters what kind of person you are.
And I can tell you that the military service doesn’t have big difference with prison (in CCCP/Russia). At least – no bananas.
PS. It’s my right to say what I think about Kovalev. At least he claims he was fighting for this all his life. So his dream comes true
Is it just me, or is there an undercurrent of menace and malice to this thread that can’t be explained by the topic, a totally harmless political gesture by pretty harmless old intellectual?
I posted it because I thought some of the things Kovalev said were interesting. Not because of who he is. I especially liked the stuff about lying and whether Putin’s people can ever extricate themselves from that slippery slope. Like the following paragraph for example:
We have a paradoxical change – you lie, your listeners know this and you know that they don’t believe you, only pretend to believe, and yet they also know that you know they don’t believe you. Everybody knows everything. The very lie no longer aspires to deceive anyone, from being a means of fooling people it has for some reason turned into an everyday way of life, a customary and obligatory rule for living. You have a Mr Markov, supposedly a professor, supposedly a political expert, and in fact a hardened and dense cynic. Speaking with him about our “politics”, a journalist said: “lies have short legs”. “Human memory is even shorter”, was Markov’s response. Horrible, yet it would seem that this is in fact the case. Of course they’ll forget a lot about the two grubby spectacles in succession in a couple of months after 2 March. However they’ll never forget something else – that the top figures of the state lie through their teeth. And how could they forget when lying is your natural element?
Granted the piece is long, but I think there are some good ideas in it that are worth thinking about. At least it isn’t the usual Kasparov inspired drivel.
“grunting Soviet beasts of burden” – I didn’t get it…
My point was that my father have never asked Kovalev to represent him or fight for him whilst he had much more grounds to claim to be from “Stalin era”. From all Soviet leaders he respect Stalin the most and laughed at Gorby (when he didn’t hate him).
And he didn’t have time to beat up intelligentov. As I told – he was working from the age of 10 (he died 10 years ago).
PS. My own favorite pastime? Watching other man working
“ou have a Mr Markov, supposedly a professor, supposedly a political expert, and in fact a hardened and dense cynic.”
This is the kind of thing I was talking about. How does he know what is going on in Markov’s head? It’s like all those lame screeds about how Bush is supposedly a malevolent monster. It’s self-righteous and tedious.
“We have a paradoxical change – you lie, your listeners know this and you know that they don’t believe you, only pretend to believe, and yet they also know that you know they don’t believe you.”
Sean.
Who are these WEs and THEYs?
This is the “open letter” of harmless (and almost brainless) person. But I didn’t ask him to write anything on my behalf.
As I said I have no objection if Kovalev wants to say anything. But I don’t like WE-style.
PS Sean sorry if you feel like your post is getting dumped on — thanks for posting it! I think my allergic reaction to polemics is showing.
How does he know what is going on in Markov’s head?
He knows from Markov’s extraordinarily cynical reply to a journalist about the public’s short memory. But — I forgot! You didn’t read the thing, as you proudly tell us.
Sean – I agree with you. It IS an interesting letter.
Fh, you are confusing me and Ivanov! I did read it.
Fh, you are confusing me and Ivanov! I did read it.
Oops. Apologies. To both, actually. I’m getting too wound up on this. I’ll take a break and count to 10 shall I?
You know, it was that Red Exile comment back there somewhere which really got to me. I’ve no idea what it meant or which side Red represents. But it really really pissed me off.
I think he/she was just making a flippant joke.
Yeah, just a joke. And that’s ok of course. We all make jokes. There is though here sometimes a tendency to crack jokes at the expense of the weak instead of the strong. Guys like Kovalev are not strong. They have their moments as quote fodder for the western media. But by and large they are ignored.
I like Sean’s blog because more often than not it leans against the prevailing winds. When the suits are pontificating at the latest policy fest in Washington or London about lost freedom and the clampdown on democracy in Moscow, some of you guys are around to correct the record and point out that Russians are choosing order over what they perceive to be chaos, and they have every right to do so.
But in the western context, those who feel this are themselves to some extent dissidents. It seems to me they should feel empathy for Russia’s minority voices, and cut them some slack.
For the record, Kovalev graduated from MGU in 1954, a year after Stalin’s death, which occurred exactly 55 years ago today (incidentally). He went on to a very distinguished career in his field of biophysics, in which his scientifically-based opposition to the outrageous views of the maniac Trofim Lysenko led him to politics, and ultimately to the camps. He is revered in some circles, and deserves to be.
fh there was no intention to piss you off.
It was neither threat nor, to be honest, concern. It was just an observation: satire if you would allow.
Don’t be paranoid mate: generally speaking political hits are not advertised on blog comment feeds.
RedEx: Understood. Sorry about the misreading. The Safranov murder was a bit too close to home for me. You exposed a nerve.
I’ve always wondered if Lysenko actually believed his own theories.
He was a malevalent schemer who exploited anti-intellectual tendencies to get ahead — and, it has to be said, to survive. He set Russian agriculture and genetic science back decades.
Whatever happened to him? Died in disgrace somewhere?
More or less stepped into line after Stalin’s death. Like any great opportunist, he transformed himself into a survivor. A Marxist take on him:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/Proletarian%20Science.pdf
a interesting article by Chatham House’s(sic!)Richard Sakwa, written relatively unbiased “‘New Cold War’ or ‘Twenty Years’ Crisis’? Russia and International Politics”
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/ia/archive/view/-/id/2268/
I tend to find most of the pravozashitniki clueless…
I’m guessing the ones you think are not clueless are ones like this guy. Or maybe they really are all clueless – trying to defend other people’s rights is such a silly idea, really, the greatness of the nation is much more important.
They have the worldview of morally outraged adolescents. Of course much the same could be said for a host of non-Russian organizations and people as well.
Whereas Pu the great must only be feigning the worldview of a morally outraged adolescent when posturing before the cameras about snot-nosed western meddlers who should teach their own wives to make soup. Right? And if his moral outrage is contrived to energize the base (rather than genuinely adolescent), it doesn’t matter anyway, since all politicians lie all the time. Right? Unless I am misreading your view of this, you’ve sort of proven one of the points I think Kovalyov was trying to make.
Is there a “rolls eyes” emoticon?
Hey thanks Fh! The introduction’s by Althusser! Cool!
It may be only my imagination, but I think I’ve been seeing a lot more stuff by Marx and Marxists in Moscow bookstores lately — Althusser, Marcuse, Trotsky, Kagarlitsky, Marx himself. I suppose it’s becoming less intellectually otstoi with time.
PS have you read Zhores Medvedev on Lysenko? The book’s on my shelf, but I haven’t looked at it yet.
Unfortunately no, but he’s another of the remarkable guys who emerged from that era. I think he’s still alive and in fact living in London. I’ve never understood what to make of Roy, his twin brother.
Lyndon.
I (personally) has nothing against Kovalev’s opinions and wisdom (joke).
What I want him to do – just stop using “WE” and pretending to be a man from Stalin Era.
“I’m guessing the ones you think are not clueless are ones like this guy. Or maybe they really are all clueless – trying to defend other people’s rights is such a silly idea, really, the greatness of the nation is much more important.”
Too many bukaff…
I really didn’t get your idea. What’s so remarkable about that guy vs. Kovalev?
They both have one common feature though – both are in love with themselves : )))
“Unfortunately no, but he’s another of the remarkable guys who emerged from that era. I think he’s still alive and in fact living in London. I’ve never understood what to make of Roy, his twin brother.”
Yeah he is in London. I saw a special on TV about him a few years ago. Roy mentions in his second-to-last book on Putin that Zhores wrote a letter to the editor of, I think, the Times of London about their coverage of Beslan they refused to print. Roy was well and truly pissed off. I thought Medvedev’s book Sotsialism v Rossii? Was really good. In fact, I translated several pages of it. I can send them to you if you want (he says, propping himself).
Chris – By all means. Love to read it. Send to: fhinrussia@googlemail.com
Sent!
Received! Will read this evening.
Does his Socialist Workers Party or whatever it was still exist?
Back to the piece at hand. I will now explicate the tendentiousness lying at its base. Kovalev is talking about the election results in Chechnya, though you have to read several paragraphs before he actually mentions the place.
Now, the Kremlin does not control Chechnya. Chechnya is controlled by the Kadyrov people, who are a bunch of frighteningly effective badasses who do whatever they perceive as being in their interests and/or the interests of Chechnya. The Kremlin does not give orders to Grozny; indeed it is the latter that is wearing the spiked heels in the relationship, as the Kremin knows full that the kadyrvosty can prance off back into the mountains, guns in hand, any time they want. The directive to issue these results was in all likelihood either issued by Kadyrov. Why?
1. Kadyrov does not appear to be a very sophisticated guy, and may not have realized how silly the elction results would look. He likes the status quo. He also knows many people in the Russian military hate him. Thus, he wants to demonstrate to the incoming president that he wants to continue things as they now stand and is the indispensable guy without which the republic will spin out of control (which is likely true).
2. Kadyrov KNEW how silly the results would look and issued them anyway in order to embarrass the Kremlin, and remind them that he wants to continue things as they now stand and is the indispensable guy without which the republic will spin out of control (which is likely true).
In either case, for the Kremlin to say, “hey! these results are impossible! do a recount, guys!” would be a slap in the face of Kadyrov, and slapping Kadyrov is not a smart thing to do.
Howver, none of this seems to occur to Kovelev. Either that, or it has occurred to him and he understands that it complicates his case, which is why he only uses the C-word once so as not to draw attention to it.
“Does his Socialist Workers Party or whatever it was still exist?”
I don’t know. I translated it as Socialist Party of Laborers so as to avoid it being confused with the British and US Socialist Workers’ Parties.
I noticed the number of Marxists being translated too. Particularly, Althusser, who’s For Marx came out when I was there. There is a lot of pomo stuff. Lots of Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze. There is a great little books store upstairs at INION (profsoiznaya metro) that has all this stuff.
Agreed on Chechnya. In fact I think most of vote manipulation is locally inspired. I don’t think we should ever underestimate the chinovnik’s ability to suck up to the top. This is the argument I make in my next eXile article on the closing of European University (it should be out sometime soon).
Kremlin critics who put to much emphasis on an all controlling center just don’t understand how Russia works. I guess it’s easier to blame an all seeing eye, no matter how blind it may be, rather than trying to understand how a complicated system works.
The SWP still exists in the US. However sad that may sound. Though they are the most tolerable of the many loony Trotskyist sects.
Oh, Joy! Just what Russia needs, another deluge of Marxian gobbledygook.
Sean, when is enough truly enough? How many decades of stunted political development, how many millions of wasted human lives does it take to shame a Marxist?
Agreed on Chechnya. In fact I think most of vote manipulation is locally inspired.
So when some local functionary, whose job depends on the kremlin, inflates the numbers to keep his job, that’s just him being him, and nothing to do with the kremlin?
Get serious. Have you any idea how much pressure was being placed on these poor sods to make their numbers?
The elections were a sham, from start to finish. Vetted parties, approved lists, mobilized employees, mandated TV times — all of it. Why bother arguing about it?
The question is why. The kremlin feels Russians aren’t ready for the real deal. Do you agree with that view or not?
“Get serious. Have you any idea how much pressure was being placed on these poor sods to make their numbers?”
I don’t know about elsewhere, but I doubt any pressure was placed on Kadyrov. His job as warlord is safe whether he is pro- or anti-Kremlin.
Get serious. Have you any idea how much pressure was being placed on these poor sods to make their numbers?
I’m very serious. And yes the election was a sham, but I don’t think we should think that chinovniki didn’t work on their own magic in making it look like more of a sham than necessary. Oh I don’t doubt there was pressure. I only question whether the center completely directed how local officials respond to that pressure.
I read about this all the time in documents from Soviet archives. Local officials read the tea leaves and decipher what the center wants and they act accordingly, usually in excess to what the center wants. (I think collectivization is a perfect, though extreme example.) Sometimes they compete with other local officials just so they can show they are better clients than the others. I’m assuming that not much has changed.
Sometimes the center does send out a directive or at least create an atmosphere of one. I do think that the Kremlin created an atmosphere of pressure beginning with the Duma elections. There might have even been directives (which we don’t know since we don’t have the documents.)
But let’s just say there was a directive telling local bureaucrats to bring the vote for Putin etc. If said directive is anything like Soviet ones, they mostly lack specific instructions on how to carry it out or to what extent to fulfill it. We saw this again and again in Soviet campaigns.
But just because locals have initiative autonomous from or in excess of the center doesn’t implicate the Kremlin any less. On the contrary, I’m sure the Kremlin likes this very much. It shows that there are local officials that are very much invested in the system or at least willing to go the extra mile to show their obedience. You just give them the ball and they run with it.
So instead of having all the power concentrated in the Kremlin’s hands directing every move like Russia some kind of chessboard, we have a much more insidious system. For example, you can see local officials doing things all the time to protect their asses. Look how many local journalists get hassled, beaten and killed. Look at how many local activists get the same shit. By my guess, the real authoritarianism takes place in the provinces and not in the nice cosmopolitan center. (By the way, Golos Samara just won a case today in the Russian Supreme Court against local officials who made their life living hell. By god the law does work. Well, sometimes.)
By the way, I love how people (not you fh, mostly idiot American and British journalists) describe the Russian government as incapable of ruling while at the same time saying that everyone bows to Putin’s every whim. Not even Stalin could get his regional secretaries to do his bidding and stop running their obkoms like little fiefdoms. And he was like the granddaddy totalitarian of them all. This is one reason, among many, why he had them all shot.
I don’t know, maybe I’ve read too many Soviet archival documents and I’m projecting too much on the present. Maybe after all these years of Russian leaders talking like they have complete control, it has finally become a reality. Boy wouldn’t that be somethin’.
By the way, I love how people (not you fh, mostly idiot American and British journalists) describe the Russian government as incapable of ruling while at the same time saying that everyone bows to Putin’s every whim.
Far from being idiotic, it sounds as though the British and American journalists have simply opened their eyes. It is perfectly possible, common even, for a leader to issue orders which everyone follows enthusiastically, yet remain incapable of ruling the country.
There is little doubt that Putin’s decisions are implemented without too much question by those tasked with doing so, but Putin cannot personally make every decision required by the Russian government. Given that he has no decent system of government beneath him to make these decisions, the decisions either don’t get made at all or are made arbitrarily by thousands of individuals or government departments. The result, stemming from the lack of decision making capability beneath Putin himself, is that Putin stuggles to rule the country. Yet those decisions he makes personally are followed without question.
This is probably the first time in a long time we agree Tim.
But I just wonder about this:
Yet those decisions he makes personally are followed without question.
Or followed as local officials see fit. Plus there is old true practice of Potemkinism. I sometimes wonder about how Putin is said to have reestablished “vertical power”. Yeah he is said to have rebuilt the structure, but what about the content? Who are these people running provinces and provincial cities? Abramovich, for example, is like an absentee landowner. Granted it is Chukota, but someone is running things there.
Tim, who’s the political boss in Sakhalin?
Or followed as local officials see fit.
I would definitely say that they follow them enthusiastically, but usually incompetently. As you say, most of the instructions coming from Moscow to the provinces are hopelessly unclear and contradictory.
Tim, who’s the political boss in Sakhalin?
For a long time it was the Regional Governor, Ivan Malakhov, but he was never a Kremlin favourite and got removed from his post because he failed to prevent the Nevel’sk earthquake. Or something. In reality, it appears that he was put in power by Rosneft head-honchos, but fell out of favour with them for forging ties with foreign oil companies instead of working solely in Rosneft’s interests.
The new chief is his replacement, formerly mayor of Okha, Alexander Khoroshavin, who is a Rosneft man through and through. Sakhalin actually gets more attention than most provinces because of the strategic location and the oil and gas reserves. But the local administration is shambolic at best, not least because it is trying to implement ever-changing directions from Moscow, or ignoring them as they see fit.
Maybe after all these years of Russian leaders talking like they have complete control, it has finally become a reality.
Hmm, you’re right. It’s something I haven’t actually thought about much lately, in large part because (I think) both Putin and his critics have a stake in the image of complete control.
For me, the leitmotif of 1990s Russia was chaos and incompetence. Nothing worked. For many Russians, to be regarded that way in the eye’s of the world was way more humiliating than loss of empire or geopolitical power.
Then along comes Putin to get the trains running on time (as someone here said recently), and the image changes. Ordinary Russians cheer, and the critics charge “fascist!”.
But what’s behind the image? Tim – you say the administration where you are is shambolic. Is that still true elsewhere?
“Is that still true elsewhere?”
When I was 11 years old I was given some private tuition by the head teacher of a local state primary school (obviousy not enough). She told me that circulars from the Minister of Education regularly arrived on her desk telling her the latest policy she should adopt. She then put them in her desk drawer and forgot about them because, she said, before too long, another one came along contradicting it and going back to square one. She was a very good teacher and neither she not I were Russian. Nor is New Orleans. Bureaucratic chaos is international. Some administrations appear more organised than others and sometimes they are more organised but not often.
I actually think that the fixation of (some) rights groups, activists etc. with how everything is the Kremlin’s fault and their deathly fear of authoritarianism has the tragically ironic consequence of their attempting to weaken the only power center that is in principle at all capable of regional abuses — which are 99% of abuses.
This is a no-brainer. If the peasants’ problem is the local Baron, they want the power of the King to be strengthened, not weakened, because he’s the only one who can keep the Baron in line.
Tim – you say the administration where you are is shambolic. Is that still true elsewhere?
It’s a question of a degree, but I would guess yes. Robert is right that bureaucratic chaos is international, as politicians of any nationality or stripe are mostly incompetent. But Russian bureaucratic chaos is particularly bad, especially in the provinces.
At very low local levels – the ones people deal every day – this is still Soviet style.
So, Sean, your expertise in old Soviet practices is not outdated at all…
But do you expect? To re-built the whole country from top to bottom in 8 years? Скоро только сказка сказывается…
It was second time in last 100 years when Russia has person in charge who is willing and capable to change something and has time for this (first one was Stalin – but his “style” was …. you know).
Yet those decisions he makes personally are followed without question.
Or followed as local officials see fit. Plus there is old true practice of Potemkinism. I sometimes wonder about how Putin is said to have reestablished “vertical power”. Yeah he is said to have rebuilt the structure, but what about the content?
The structure is the content.
The main feature of the vertical of power is its resemblance of the feudal vassal-sovereign pyramid. People at the lower steps of the ladder directly depend on the higher ups for their livelihood. They are appointed to lucrative positions and serve there at the will of appointers. The higher ups do not need to tell them exactly what to do. They percieve what needs to be done and act. Sometimes this perception misfires. (which I suspect happened in the Litvinenko case)
Look at the chart somebody from ЖЖ compiled based on official Duma election turnout reports. Round numbers are reported significantly more often creating a shark tooth instead of a natural bell curve. The drawback of this feudalistic system is reliance on low lever bureaucrats with poor imagination for lies. Or so sloppy in their cynicism that they reveal the election process for the sham it was.
The sad thing is that Medvedev (or UR in case of Duma elections) would have had no problems winning. Why is it so damn important to hit the magic 70% threshold?
Also, apparently the number of eligible voters have increased by 2 million between June and December only to decrease by the same amount by March.
“People at the lower steps of the ladder directly depend on the higher ups for their livelihood. They are appointed to lucrative positions and serve there at the will of appointers.”
Do you mean this
“system”?
I doubt this is exclusively Russian “”system”
I doubt this is exclusively Russian “”system”
The link did not work but nowhere did I say it was an exclusively Russian system. There isn’t much that would be exclusively Russian, except Putin’s favorite cabbage soup.
The system is universal. Mexico under PRI looked exactly the same.
try this
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3374/5a2db20fd95ftc7.jpg
I think this system is universal since the time of pyramids…