We've been wondering *how* exactly he would do it, and now it seems that we know. No, Putin hasn't ammended the Russian constitution in order to allow himself to run for a third term as President. Instead, he has announced that he may very well run for Prime Minister once he is no longer President. The new President (who will most likely be whomever Putin endorses) will have the ability to allow the Prime Minister to become the de facto ruler of Russia if he so chooses. This does not surprise me in the slightest, really. Back in July, I wrote an exceptionally long piece on my blog regarding Russian political history, showing that throughout the years of its existence as a state, Russia has repeatedly reverted to an authoritarian state every chance it got. My conclusion was that an authoritarian Putin is to be expected. If you're interested, that post is here.
The article in Slate says, It's as if George W. Bush decided to step down from office, run for Congress in 2008, declare himself speaker of the House, and declare that the speaker of the House would, from then on, take over the president's responsibilities, and run the executive branch. We would call that a de facto coup d'etat. In Russia, it's constitutional politics. But Slate (and all other news agencies who have reported on this) doesn't take into account the attitude of the Russian populace. While news agencies love to focus on pro-democracy demonstrations whenever and wherever they happen inside of Russia, the fact of the matter is, they don't happen very often, and when they do, they're pretty small. From what I've experienced during my times in Russia, this isn't because the masses are worried about government retribution, it's because they simply don't care. If George W. Bush decided to pull a de facto coup d'etat, people wouldn't stand for it. We'd protest. We'd rebell. Russians on the other hand would sigh and say, Oh, that's government for you.
4 comments:
Wow.
Any insight into why there's this widespread indifference? Having no first hand knowledge, I would have assumed that people who don't traditionally have a very high standard of living (especially compared to their country's importance on the international stage) would have more of a reason to get involved in government and want change.
But, I will also assume/admit that that's a very American viewpoint to have.
"If George W. Bush decided to pull a de facto coup d'etat, people wouldn't stand for it. We'd protest. We'd rebell."
Is this statement still true? It was certainly true in the 1960s. Today, some people would clearly be very upset and complain a lot. But would we really do anything about it? I would like to say "yes, we clearly would" but lately I'm feeling more and more jaded by the seeming lack of knowledge and/or concern by the American people about what is going on.
Melissa
Jen - at least you *admit* that it's a very American viewpoint. The problem with "spreading democracy" is that different cultures react *differently* to democratic opportunities. I think this is one reason that George W, etc assumed that all we had to do was get rid of Saddaam and the liberated Iraqis would immediately set about establishing a US style government.
Russians seem to be incredibly tolerant in terms of dealing with their situations. Here's an example, in case you don't want to wade through that entire lengthy piece from my blog, which illustrates the difference between how an American and a Russian would react in a certain situation:
Under the Soviet Union, a centralized system was created to provide hot water to the masses. Most Russians still get their hot water from central hot water sources. This means that for most of the year, your average Russian has unlimited hot water. Unfortunately, for a few weeks to a month or so every summer, the hot water is shut off for routine maintenance. That’s a few weeks to a month or so of no hot water. (And let me tell you, cold tap water in Russia – even in the summer – is REALLY cold.) Now, obviously in the US the government doesn’t supply us with hot water… but just imagine for a moment that it did. Imagine for a moment how the populace would react if every summer there was a month or so of no hot water. People would be writing/calling/emailing/visiting everyone from their local city council to their state and national representatives, lobbying to get this situation remedied ASAP. You know what the Russians do when the hot water goes out? They simply deal with it.
Melissa - I think that there would definitely be a rebellion, although sadly I suspect that in today's climate there are enough people who would be ignorant enough to be swayed to support the coup by a "war on terror" argument. If such a thing were to happen, I suspect the US would have a civil war. I'd be really surprised if BSG folks were the only ones rebelling. But let's hope we never have the opportunity to find out.
From what I've experienced during my times in Russia, this isn't because the masses are worried about government retribution, it's because they simply don't care.
=====
While oil prices are high. And once they go down, all dreams about prosperous life is ruined, and who is in charge of it? Government, whoever it is, even unanimously elected month ago.
( And this is not like in end of 80s, with lack of food; but now most of us are used to western consumption model )
Post a Comment