The results of the mayoral election in Sochi were as expected. United Russia’s candidate Anatoly Pakhomov won. No repeat of the Murmansk mayoral contest allowed. The losers, Solidarity’s Boris Nemtsov and the Communist Party candidate Yuri Dzaganiya, have already charged massive fraud, dirty campaign tricks, and use of a variety “administrative resources” to hoist Pakhomov to victory. Both candidates were systematically barred from local television, their billboards removed, and campaign literature confiscated. Local Sochi tv even smeared poor Nemtsov with a 20 minute film claiming he was a South Korean spy. And what dastardly plot was he hatching for the east Asian nation? Conspiring to move the Olympics to Seoul. As if.
Early voting served as the perfect opportunity for stuffing the box in favor of Pakhmonov. And if that wasn’t enough to tip the balance, then mobile poll buses were dispatched to the Abkhaz border. Last week, Sochi’s electoral committee ruled that citizens of Abkhazia with Russian passports and Sochi residency could cast ballots. As a result, this election is probably the one of first to make a serious effort to enfranchise the homeless.
There isn’t much more to say about a contest which began as a circus and closed with a magic show. Votes were made to disappear and reappear at the behest of the electoral committee’s magicians. Nothing says this more than the enormous gap between exit polls and the election results, via Ezhdnevnyi zhurnal:
The surveys of exist polls gave the following results: Pakhomov, the candidate from United Russia, 46 percent; Nemstov the candidate for Solidarity, 35 percent. In other words, a run off. Yuri Rykov, the head of the city electoral committee, offered entirely different figures to the court of public opinion. Pakhmonov – almost 78 percent, Nemtsov 13.5 percent.
One candidate had to score 50 percent to avoid a run off. United Russia wasn’t going to take a chance even if that meant making electoral fraud even more blatant than usual. After all, it ain’t called “managed democracy” for nothin’.
Photo: Debaterage.
{ 45 comments }
Sean, turnout was 38% and 6% lower than the 2008 Sochi elections. Where is the room for extensive ballot stuffing?
The exit polls you mentioned with 35% for Nemtsov, i believe come from Nemtsov’s election staff. At least that is what the local media wrote yesterday.
Of course, this was not democracy to be proud of, but let’s not overdo in criticism.
Very fun. The show goes on.
I’m not sure if I’m saying trivial stuff, but, Sean, you and your colleagues are also elements of this system. You are used for 2 purposes:
1) That way the authorities can know that they aren’t overusing the power — it’s very important to keep the proper balance.
2) That way, the unfriendly attitude of the West is maintained.
Who said that Russia is interested in benevolent West? That’s true, but only up to the certain degree.
You can object that you have your views and act accordingly to them — that’s why I said you are an element of the system. Because you are predictable.
So… it’s a very complex show overall. I’m not sure who is running it all — perhaps, some big businesses, world mega corparations..
Third paragraph needs some work.
Like a cop mopping up at the scene of an accident – there’s nothing to see here people, move along, move along.
Calling this blog “part of the system” is like calling the valve cap on your cars tire part of the automobiles system.
And this is a KGB blog as well.
I like this story more:
I still have a nagging feeling the people who write these stories have never actually run/worked on a political campaign themselves. I really need to find a way to work on a campaign in Russia. I’m confident that’s the only way I will be able to asses the situation and respond with the appropriate level of outrage. I absolutely refuse to buy into the belief that Russia’s political corruption and gamesmanship is some horrible ugly mutant offspring of Real Democracy.
Where I live, there is a common outrage at the process. And because the process is considered compromised, the results of the process are not taken on their merits. I’m all for transparency and fairness in politics. I think democracy is a better tool for the day to day running of a country than, say, a tank. Pakhmonov, other than the assertion that he was not the guy most of Sochi wanted, what is going to be the impact of his election on the lives of those people? Tell me why I should be scared. Or care.
Apologies if that came across as snide.
The onus may be on the ruling party to tackle corruption. But at some point the onus is also on the opposition to stop being so politically naive/incompetent. Especially if they really truly believe that they have the obligation to represent the best interests of the Russian people and that obligation is not being met by the ruling party. Because I find it pretty interesting that these stories rarely if ever address the concerns, desires of the people, which is what Real Democracy is supposed to be all about. The entire power struggle appears to be between factions of elites.
The entire power struggle appears to be between factions of elites.
Isn’t all really existing democracy? But hell I happen to think that all liberal democracy is managed. The Russians just do it really clumsy.
Btw has anyone read Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism? If so is it worth a read?
It IS all managed.
It’s not the clumsiness (though they are that too) that gets our goat, but that they don’t even make a lot of effort to pretend it is not managed. Which exposes it for what it really is. They make their sausage in the open, and we find it uncivilized, an offense of all decency. Liberal democracies seem to survive on a myth, like all ideologies, that when something is unfair, it is about bad apples, it is exceptional, it is abuse. Because democracy is all about fairness. It’s implicitly GOOD. It’s like religion for us that way. But it’s really just a system of humans trying to govern themselves to maintain some semblance of civil society. And a political system at that. And a process. There is management and disparity every step of the way. There is just much less discretion about the fact in Russian politics (which, ironically, could be healthier for a democracy in the long run). They are not as invested in the system’s ideological pristineness as they are in its effectiveness. They being UR, I guess…
And yeah, I’d like to see more discussion of what is best for the country as a whole, and why, and less knee-jerk condemnation of every election won by UR.
Sean, you and your colleagues are also elements of this system.
Not-so-Russia-friendlies…
Those who get concerned about why the western-style liberal democracy doesn’t work in Russia the way they think it should, should better get concerned, why the Communism didn’t work in the West in 1920s.
Ideologists of it thought that it would inflame the world in a single massive rebellion.
But for some reason, it worked only for the Soviet Union, and later for China.
But the fact that the Communist rebellions in Germany and Great Britain in 1920s didn’t succeed, doesn’t mean that something is wrong with population of those countries.
Just it was the wrong time and wrong place for those ideas.
If you want to _understand_ Russia, you need to understand principles it’s build on. For example, read this article. It’s not the ultimate truth and it’s a tough read, but it makes some valid points.
http://magazines.russ.ru/neva/2009/4/ry10.html
Have you seen this ladies about the recent St. Pete’s elections?
Idealism Amid the Cynicism of Russian Politics
Winning Candidate From Ruling Party Renounces Fraudulent Victory
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602651_pf.html
Where’s there’s muck there’s brass!
Note, that anyway there’s the victory of Pakhomov. The exit polls results clearly indicate his victory. Despite the fact, that with all his obvious friendliness towards Russia, Sean didn’t show any testimony of election fraud or ballot stuffing.
Of course, the most conspicious part of it is that there’s no testimony! Yes, we know there was fraud, we can’t prove that, but we just know it for certain, why would we bother with the proof! We know Putin is evil and everybody nominated by the ruling party is evil too!
I’m sorry, but I’m yet interested in proofs. And it doesn’t look like there are any.
It’s a cheap trick — to pretend that insignificant details are significant — but it works well. I didn’t understand the trick at first.
1) The exit polls show the victory of Pakhomov. With runoff or without, is clearly less important than the fact that the guy had the majority of vote, any way.
2) There’s no evidence of ballot stuffing or election fraud. Abhkazian inhabitants are citizens of Russia and therefore have a constitutional right to vote. There’s nothing impossible in the photo of the ballot — at some polling station there could be indeed 1000 votes for Pakhomov and 100 for Nemtsov.
And what’s the result of it? The Great Story of Managed Democracy. The Account of the Bloody Regime. Whatever names you can give it — but not what it is, a fair victory guessing from the evidence we have (none).
@Evgeny: tovaritch, when parties and candidates are not allowed fair treatment before elections and when ballots “disappear” and “reappear”, you can legitimately question the fairness of the whole process. I am not going to make any judgement on what happened in Sochi, because I wasn’t there. But I’ll just tell something about democracy, because I am appalled by all the comments above about “all democracies being managed”. That some of you guys are comparing what’s happening in Russia with democracy is a sad joke for all of those who fought and died to make democracy happen. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Democracy is like all human things: never perfect, always potentially improved. However, it is the only system that, per its mechanism, allows freedom of choice and attempts to prevent the oppression of one group by another. It is the only system which offers choice and alternatives to its citizens. Yes, this choice is sometimes limited, and yes, some parties attempt to trump this choice. But the democratic system is precisely based on preventing this to happen.
What happens in Russia has nothing to do with democracy, except the name. Calling it “managed democracy” is a simple lie. UR is just one mafia who replaced another one (the oligarchs). And please, don’t serve me the usual bullshit about Russians or Chinese being genetically or culturally unable to enjoy democracy. It’s amazing how people become “unfit” for democracy when you assassinate, crush with tanks, threaten and so on enough of them…
Anyway, enough of my ranting. Good luck Russians, you will need it…
Evgeny, I guess now that MTBE is no more (R.I.P.) you have resorted to trolling here. By the way, LOL at your idea that Communism “worked…for the Soviet Union, and later for China.”
More on-topic, this is a pretty interesting commentary on the Sochi elections (and, more generally, the failure of the Russian “liberals”).
Alphast: When will you understand the simple idea that Russians don’t have to do anything? The person is free from birth, and you can’t just tell that one has to fight for democracy, communism, or whatever. If some person doesn’t give a damn about democracy, but instead prefers to spend his time in night clubs, it doesn’t speak bad about him.
Looking at a democracy fighter and just a normal person, I can’t say who is better. For me, the better person is one which isn’t obsessed with “large” ideas. Because he simply isn’t a human, but a place to put the idea in.
There’s no difference between a modern democracy fighter, and a communism fighter of 1930s. When will you understand this.
sorry
*For me, the better person is one who isn’t obsessed with “large” ideas. Because OTHER WAY he simply isn’t a human, but a place to put the idea in.
I just hate the idea of meeting a person, who while looking on a beautifun sunset wouldn’t say “Wow! That’s the best moment in my life!” But would say something like: “It’s a pity that this beautiful sunset doesn’t happen in a free democratic country.”
That’s my point. I simply want to be a human.
Lyndon: There’s nothing to laugh at. What I meant was merely the idea that Communist revolutions in those two countries succeeded, and lead to establishment of Communist governmnents which lasted for decades at least. While similar revolutions didn’t succeed in Germany or Great Britain.
And I don’t have anything against Communism… err, Democracy. But only if it happens outside my country.
It’s just ridiculous. American civilization didn’t last for a single thousands years yet, but they pretend they know the best! May be, after 200 years there would be just no America, what then? And China exists already for several millenia, Russia has at least a single thousand years history.
Lyndon: don’t also bother, I won’t stay for long. Just I needed to understand what relation to _my_ reality does this blog have. _My_ — because the only thing a person can ultimately do is to decide something for myself. Now I wish you guys from the parallel universe stay well in your parallel universe. Good luck.
*to decide something for oneself,
of course
Six un-answered comments – an SRB record?
When will you understand the simple idea that Russians don’t have to do anything? The person is free from birth…
Unless he wants to move to another city without registration…
I’ve been told I should be ashamed for suggesting all democracies are managed. People are entitled to their opinion, but for those willing to keep an open mind, I will show why I do not find a compression between systems shameful. I went to google news and looked at the first 3 stories on the election.
Activists decry Russia’s latest case of ‘managed democracy’ Excerpts:
1. Obama won his first election by challenging the opposition’s petitions and having them kept off the ballots on technical grounds.
2. While there are laws in America requiring candidates to be given equal amounts of free airtime, thry are free to BUY as much media as they can afford, and as a result, those with the most money and connections get the most airtime.
3. Early voting is becoming increasingly more common in America. Al Capone said, vote early and vote often. The most recent election in the US saw unprecedented levels of early voting.
Kremlin’s Candidate Headed to Victory in Sochi Excerpts:
1. Pakhomov entered the race with name recognition and popular support.
2. High turnout is not evidence of foul play. Nor is early voting. Had Nemtsov won, we could just as easily be talking about how high turnout reflected mandate, and early voting a sign of civic engagement.
3. It’s common for candidates to offer transportation to get people to the polls in America, particularly the elderly, ill, etc. Furthermore, in America, it is routine for employers to discourage people from voting during work hours, so that laws have been passed in some states requiring employers allow people time to vote. inconvenience is one of the biggest reasons Americans give for not voting.
4. If ballots are secret, one cannot be “forced” to vote for someone. One can be pressured. Pressuring people to vote a certain way is called campaigning, and is common in liberal democracies. In America, you have a right to a secret ballot, but at most polling places with paper ballots, you could easily find out how a person voted if you really wanted to.
New Yorker writer arrested in Russia: report
1. In America, it is illegal to enter a polling place after it has closed without proper accreditation, regardless who you are. We don’t arrest offenders largely because we lock the doors before they can get in. Even those with accreditation are not allowed to leave and re-enter once the polls have closed. It’s like jury duty.
…
My point here is not to show that the election in Sochi was democratic, or that those in America are undemocratic, or suggest the process is the same in both places. It is to illustrate that the mechanisms in place which influence the outcome of a vote are commonly found in both Russia and America, and how one interprets the merit of these mechanisms appears to be a matter of confirmation bias.
The true face of Russian liberal.
With such friend Nemtsov doesn’t not need an enemy.
http://idiot.fm/images/ZZ322C3AB6.jpg
PS. And about democracy – I could tell a lot. Having the first lesbian-communist government in the world after skyr revolution – is fun really….
poemless, while I hesitate to even entertain the sort of “а у вас негров линчуют” argument you advance, I have to say that you really lost me with your comments to the second article.
1. Pakhomov entered the race with name recognition and popular support.
Yes, everyone knows about the incumbency advantage, which is a factor in any election. However, are you suggesting that Pakhomov – who had only been acting mayor for six months, after all – would have had the requisite name recognition for such a victory if he were not backed by and associated with the party of power?
2. High turnout is not evidence of foul play. Nor is early voting. Had Nemtsov won, we could just as easily be talking about how high turnout reflected mandate, and early voting a sign of civic engagement.
Read the article (and other reports) more closely. Turnout overall was actually down some 3% from the previous elections (not that it’s statistically significant, but there it is). The complaint advanced in the article is about the extraordinarily high rate of early voting. A more apt comparison with the US (since we’ve gone there) would be the suspicions some people have about the manipulation of absentee ballots (esp. those cast by military serving overseas), however I don’t think their total ever amounts to even close to 11% of registered voters.
3. It’s common for candidates to offer transportation to get people to the polls in America, particularly the elderly, ill, etc.
What happened with the bus-borne polling station at the border with Abkhazia would be more like if, in the San Antonio mayoral elections, the incumbent sent bus-borne polling stations to the border with Mexico and invited anyone with or without US documents to cast a ballot. Simply no comparison to the standard GOTV measures employed in the US.
Furthermore, in America, it is routine for employers to discourage people from voting during work hours, so that laws have been passed in some states requiring employers allow people time to vote. inconvenience is one of the biggest reasons Americans give for not voting.
What is being complained about in Sochi is a dissimilar phenomenon, that of people being told by their employers who they should vote for and then in many cases given transportation to the polling station (or the polling station coming to them) and going to vote under their employer’s supervision. This occurs in a number of countries (that I know of; maybe in all of them) in the post-Soviet space and may have once had analogs in the Chicago / NY machines, but I think is pretty much no more in today’s US. So I guess what I’m saying is I totally agree with your statement in the paragraph immediately above, but I’m not sure how it relates to the Sochi elections or addresses any of the criticisms of those elections.
4. If ballots are secret, one cannot be “forced” to vote for someone. One can be pressured. Pressuring people to vote a certain way is called campaigning, and is common in liberal democracies. In America, you have a right to a secret ballot, but at most polling places with paper ballots, you could easily find out how a person voted if you really wanted to.
Again, I don’t think you understand the kind of pressure that is being applied to people (e.g., schoolteachers or employees of factories with close ties to the local administration) – it is not just “campaigning,” it is “vote for X, because if you don’t then you may have problems at work;” or, more subtly, “X always makes sure our school is funded / factory has orders – don’t you want them to be re-elected?” And while some people go against such pressure from their management, if even you think it’s easy to tell how someone voted on a paper ballot, you’d better believe that many people there are going to vote as they’re told for fear of someone finding out that they didn’t. That is pressure which simply cannot be compared with “campaigning.”
Finally, leaving aside the valid reasons why people would vote for UR’s candidate (which certainly do exist, especially in Sochi, where UR basically brought the city worldwide fame and fortune), as well as the valid reasons why people would NOT vote for Nemtsov (many of which are related to a fairly extensive smear campaign against him in the state-run media which goes back years, but some of which are also related to the bone-headedness which characterizes the way Russian opposition politicians campaign), if we want to discuss the way the campaign (as opposed to the voting) was conducted (with all of the local administrative resources and Moscow-based coordination and control over the broadcast media making sure that people saw only one possible choice), I’m sorry but there is absolutely no comparison with any mayor’s race in the US that I can think of.
Sorry, много букафф, I know…we probably agree more on the big picture (democracy isn’t perfect anywhere) than this long comment suggests, I guess I’m just not as willing to give the system that’s developed in Russia as much of a free pass on certain practices which make Russian “democracy” a decidedly managed one.
PS – if you’re looking for the proper American analog to the Russian practice of employers busing people to the polls, it’s the (not particularly common, complained about when it happens, and now, I believe, illegal) practice of employers asking everyone in the company to make the maximum individual donation to candidate X (the illegal part is when, as some employers used to do, the employer then reimburses the employee for the contribution).
“it is not just “campaigning,” it is “vote for X, because if you don’t then you may have problems at work;” or, more subtly, “X always makes sure our school is funded / factory has orders – don’t you want them to be re-elected?””
That’s of course very good — in theory, but could you provide evidence for such type behaviour?
If you just don’t like UR, may be it would be more fair just to say that?
Lyndon: I’m quite skeptical against UR, but likewise, I’m skeptical against opposition, especially in regard to political claims unsupported by evidence. And I’m not sure you are taking claims of your ideological allies with enough dose of skepticism.
Evidence? I have seen a fair number press reports quoting individuals complaining about such behavior (see, e.g., here), although I’m sure you’ll say that’s not “evidence.” I haven’t been to Russia since 2006, and when I lived there I didn’t hang out with too many students, schoolteachers or factory workers, so I have never heard about it first-hand. Not that it’s necessarily relevant, but I have heard first-hand about this type of thing in recent election cycles from people in Moldova, where the behavior of the ruling party has come to resemble UR’s more and more in recent years.
As for your second comment, please don’t presume to know who my “ideological allies” are. I don’t really think I have any.
Responding to Lyndon:
“would have had the requisite name recognition for such a victory if he were not backed by and associated with the party of power?”
I must be missing your point. Being backed by and associated with the party of power and therefore having an advantage over your challengers is a common attribute of many candidates in all democracies. My post was to illustrate the mechanisms and dynamics commonly found throughout democracies. In fact, if you are implying that being associated with the party of power is inherently unfair, I think you have illustrated my last point about confirmation bias.
“A more apt comparison with the US (since we’ve gone there) would be the suspicions some people have about the manipulation of absentee ballots”
Why is it not more apt to compare the phenomenon of early voting to that of … early voting? And yes, absentee ballots and the possible manipulation of them is one more example of “management. Thanks for again illustrating my point.
“would be more like if, in the San Antonio mayoral elections, the incumbent sent bus-borne polling stations to the border with Mexico and invited anyone with or without US documents to cast a ballot.’
My emphasis was enfranchisement, yours is citizenship. “A more apt comparison” is the way Mexicans in the US, who are here legally or illegally, are registered to vote. I really am not arguing that “see we do it to” though. I am trying, in vain, to draw the focus away from the characters involved to the mechanisms involved in a democratic election. Parties take measures to disenfranchise or take advantage of certain vulnerable demographics to win elections. It’s not right. It’s not rare either.
“but I’m not sure how it relates to the Sochi elections or addresses any of the criticisms of those elections.”
It relates because when people are prevented from voting, it is considered an anti-democratic tactic. Why is taking people to the polls and making them vote also anti-democratic? The implication of this logic is that left to their own devices, people would not vote, and thus the elected official would be more legitimate.
And to address the matter of pressure. It is probably much more insidious in Russia and post-Communist countries than in the liberal democracies of Western Europe and Noth America. But all of my experience working on political campaigns (too many to count) has been in Chicago. Old habits are hard to break here, and while we may have made an itsy bit of progress, I can assure you I don’t need a lecture on political patronage and corruption. It’s like you think I just don’t get it. The sentiment is mutual. I feel like you just don’t get it. It might be worse, and is certainly more brazen, but is is absolutely not unique. Political patronage and corruption and so-called systems of democracy co-exist. I’m reminded of man in Moscow who asked me how we make democracy and capitalism co-exist in America. Like, doesn’t one immediately contradict the aim of the other? Yes. Doesn’t stop us from trying, though. Politics immediately contradict the aim of democracy. But, well, do you have a better idea? These things are never black and white!
…
We probably do agree about the bigger picture. And I thank you for pointing out that there are very legitimate reasons why people would freely vote for Pakhmonov over Nemtsov. And I am in no way giving UR a free pass. I don’t give *any* political organization a free pass. Or any political system. Or any country. But there is clearly a double standard, either because of ignorance or malice. That doesn’t clear Russia of guilt. But it isn’t constructive in any way I can see, for Russia or the rest of the world.
Weirdly, I still don’t see any evidence of foul play in the Sochi election that would stand up in a court of law.
Lyndon: “I have seen a fair number press reports quoting individuals complaining about such behavior”
Yes, I have similar information — not from the “press reports”, but from the relevant LJ posts. Some glimpses of such stuff appear sometimes. Can’t say though how much widespread it is. Clearly it’s not the governmentally-supported activity — because I, an university student employed as an engineer, can’t say I’ve ever experienced pressure of such kind, nor can’t say that about my relatives. I think it’s what was called in Soviet Union “перегибы на местах”, i.e. some minor officials’ unadequate understanding of their functions. It’s unlawful, and there are no mechanisms to ensure that a certain person voted for a certain party.
“please don’t presume to know who my “ideological allies” are. I don’t really think I have any.”
Neither do I. I can speak of personalities who share my worldview wholly or partly, but not of any party.
“some minor officials’ unadequate understanding of their functions” … or some minor official trying to impress their superiors because one moves up the ladder that way…
Imagine an American reading about a murder in Denmark and saying, “These Danes are real hypocrites. They also kill each other, but dare to criticize the US for its murders!” Well, we all know this American is either being stupid or disingenuous. The scale of the problem is of critical importance. It would be equally idiotic (or disingenuous) for a Russian to jump into any irregularity of US elections (which are undeniable) to either suggest or imply that the electoral problems in both countries are of a similar scale.
I just checked the various murder rates, so I’ll change my example. Instead of Denmark, let’s make it either the UK or Ireland. Anyway, you guys get my point.
poemless, I like this point:
Parties take measures to disenfranchise or take advantage of certain vulnerable demographics to win elections.
True, it happens everywhere to some extent. By the same token, the Democratic Party’s registration drives in selected neighborhoods could be seen by a cynic (and anyone watching bol’shaia politika anywhere should be) as taking measures to enfranchise and take advantage of vulnerable demographic groups (it’s better than disenfranchising them, but certainly not done out of altruism). I still think the gaming is a bit different in Russia, because demographics are not as predictive of how one will vote as they are in the US.
Regarding political patronage and corruption co-existing with democracy, I didn’t mean to lecture you, however the way pressure is applied on voters in the post-Soviet space is qualitatively different than anything I’ve seen in today’s US – and it’s important to remember that in terms of political norms, Chicago is not really the US. Also, even in patronage systems, the idea is that the people on the lower rungs get something in exchange for following the group and voting as one (isn’t it?), and presumably at some point they made a choice to join the system. This is not true of students, employees of private (or even state-run) factories, or schoolteachers who experience pressure (however isolated the incidents are, and I’m not convinced it’s such a rare thing) in Russia.
The kind of corruption I think Americans countenance outside of Chicago and maybe some other urban areas has more to do with money and lobbyists obtaining specific policy outcomes on discrete issues rather than fixing election results (please don’t bring up Bush v. Gore!! – I had to remind a lot of people in Moldova about that one when I was there a couple of weeks ago, just to point out that contested elections can happen anywhere). But who knows, maybe I am hopelessly naive about the way the sausage is made in my own country.
In fact, if you are implying that being associated with the party of power is inherently unfair, I think you have illustrated my last point about confirmation bias.
In the US, which one is the “party of power”? That’s sort of what I was implying. Sure, a popular president will come out and campaign in important local or state elections in the US, and we all know about the “coattails effect,” but the whole point of the system is that it’s not always the same “party of power.” The dynamic in Russia is of a single party being the “party of power” and only now – maybe, as some analysts have ever-so-hopefully and tentatively posited – possibly starting to open up a tiny bit of political space for other parties. I guess Rome wasn’t built in a day, so perhaps one should try to stay optimistic.
“some minor officials’ unadequate understanding of their functions” … or some minor official trying to impress their superiors because one moves up the ladder that way…
If there is a perception among the rank-and-file that the way one moves up the ladder by is by producing results that are (in some cases, speaking now not about Sochi) obviously falsified when one looks at the precinct level results, that is not a problem with the rank-and-file, it is a problem with the leadership that allows this perception to go unchallenged.
And it is disappointing, Evgeny, to see you have to resort to comparing the practices in today’s Russia with the state of affairs in the Soviet Union – “перегибы,” isn’t that how some people excused some of the Stalin-era killings? The point is that if VVP/DAM’s management vertikal’ was as tiggy-tight and efficient as they would like voters to believe, they would be able to discourage such practices if they wanted to. Discouraging them clearly has not been and is not a priority for UR.
Lyndon: “And it is disappointing, Evgeny, to see you have to resort to comparing the practices in today’s Russia with the state of affairs in the Soviet Union”
People remained the same. Naturally, I and most of my friends were born in that country.
While the willingness of officials to look better in eyes of their superiors, like Poemless noted, exist in any place and any time.
I don’t think the Soviet Union was all that bad. There was the working industry, good science, Army, health care. All what the new-generation democrats hurried to get rid of in the race for democracy. I don’t deny that, democracy is a good thing. But you also need a working economy, health care, education and a number of things. A lot of this stuff is currently in critical condition and may collapse in a decade or so if not to take care of it NOW.
“The point is that if VVP/DAM’s management vertikal’ was as tiggy-tight and efficient ”
It’s neither tiggy-tight, nor efficient. If a leader like Stalin took power these days, his first move would be to shot to death 90% of state officials. May be, the rest 10% would start working then.
While the willingness of officials to look better in eyes of their superiors, like Poemless noted, exist in any place and any time.
Yes, but only in some places and some times (today’s Russia apparently being one of them) does producing the desired electoral result through obviously fraudulent methods make an official “look better in the eyes of their superiors.”
Lyndon: Okey, imagine you are one of those officials. You want to learn what’s the current situation. To do that you listen to the opposition. What can you hear? That Russia has returned in the times of Soviet Union, that it’s a dictatorship ruled by bloody Putin. What can you do after that? Of course, do your best as a state official of a good old dictatorship!
“Chicago is not really the US.”
Oh come one. First off, my whole thesis is based on this. Now you’ve ruined it! Plus Obama is a product of Chicago politics and he’s the hero of all Democracy ever!
But seriously, I work with progressive organizations which have local affiliates all over the country, and while Chicago is an anomaly, wherever there are elections, there are cries of foul play. I understand Kolya’s argument of scale. But politics can be dirty anywhere. Though Chicago is a better example of systemic patronage and corruption, of a “managed” democracy. Running against Daley would be like running against a UR candidate. The machine makes certain no one else can win. But, like many of the elections in Russia, it’s often about making sure a candidate who has a very good chance of winning does win. Leave nothing to chance. If that effects the outcome, it is not really because of election fraud (which exists) but because of the longterm effect of discouraging future challengers. However, opposition losses are not in themselves evidence of foul play. A ruling party or administration can be corrupt and still have real popular support for any number of reasons.
Re: VVP/DAM’s management vertikal’. Sure. They could. But politics is about winning elections. People generally do not complain about corruption which they benefit from until it becomes clear that corruption is a threat to their own careers. Or you are an idealistic newbie like the fellow in the article above complaining about winning unfairly. Medvedev and Putin have both spoken out about the corruption in their government, and specifically their party (which I believe Putin would only chair on the condition he didn’t have to become a member, hardly an endorsement, lol). This way they can enjoy the benefits of its assured success while looking like they care if it is a legitimate success. Genuine crackdownscome when the corruption, or the corrupt individuals, become too much of a threat.
Plus Obama is a product of Chicago politics and he’s the hero of all Democracy ever!
Recently I spoke with a Nigerian guy who basically seemed to think Obama walks on water and that the US had saved itself from the Bush years by electing him; and furthermore that all he had to do to end the global crisis was “release the money.” Then, later the same evening, I was talking to a Polish guy who highly recommended I watch “Obama Deception” (apparently some sort of YouTube sensation) and averred that BHO is nothing but a tool of Wall Street (he didn’t have much positive to say about Polish politicians, either). All of this was in London. So I guess the world really is watching.
I wasn’t sure what it all meant (except for a lingering fear that if he disappoints the many hero-worshipers it might be worse than if McCain had just been elected), but it was interesting to have the two contrasting points of view presented one after the other.
All of this was in London.
I think I sat opposite that guy on the London Underground last time I was there (see 3rd para).
Speaking of ridiculous conspiracy theories, I wonder if the rumors in Russia can top the stuff I’ve been reading in the pro-Chavez sites from Venezuela. A couple of examples:
Nazism Behind Type A Influenza (Nazismo detrás de la Influenza Tipo A): The Swine Flu pandemic is an attempt by GlaxoSmithKline and Roche to save capitalism.
http://aporrea.org/actualidad/a76995.html
This Pig Virus is Mighty Suspicious (Ese virus de chancho ‘tá sospechoso): The US, of course, is the prime suspect in fomenting 4th Generation Biological Warfare. As we all know, Cuba has already been victimized by suspicious plagues affecting both crops and people, etc…
http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a76998.html
Their forums are discussing the all too obvious diabolical handiwork of US and capitalists agencies in purposefully unleashing this pandemic…..
Kolya: Look here.
http://revolver.ru/socium/28271
http://revolver.ru/world/28281/
How do you like the idea of using nuclear weapons to desinfect biologically polluted areas?
Comments on this entry are closed.