I'll confess to having very little knowledge of the Russian parliamentary system, but this story in the NY Times caught my eye today.
There are a few things this brings to mind:
1. What a frickin' HUGE loophole for getting around term limits! Not only can Putin retain much of his power and influence as premier, but he can also run for president again as long as someone else holds the post for the next term. And that person, the next president, seems to have been chosen (by Putin!!) simply to broadcast Putin's ideas anyway. I'm a big fan of mandatory roll-overs of power in government, so I'm having trouble seeing the benefits that this sort of set-up provides. Any one have an insight?
2. As Americans, we may be unhappy at times with both the democrats and the republicans, but at least we have (for all practical purposes) a two-party system. While flawed, that's still way more democratic than what the United Russia party's opposition leader is calling the "one-party system in Russia." In practice, how different is this than the current American system? Are there benefits to having one consistently dominant party?
3. How will Putin's hold on the Russian government affect diplomatic relations with the US? Obviously, things have been pretty tense lately, and the administration wants to blame Putin specifically for that. With him basically staying in power, will the US have to reformulate it's diplomacy strategy (I use those words loosely with this administration)?
3.a. This also brings to mind last week's debacle of miscommunicating the response to Ahmadinejad's request to lay a wreath on Ground Zero in New York. Instead of politely saying "sorry, no visitors allowed at this time," the NYPD first announced that they would have to consider it. Then, completely over-shadowing NYPD's correction, a ton of political candidates and officials condemned his request with words like "unacceptable" and "shockingly audacious." This reeks of diplomatic insensitivity to me. Laying a wreath at the site of a tragic event is exactly the right thing for visiting world leaders to do, just as our leaders should do it in other countries, no matter what these frothing-at-the-mouth media hounds think of the leader's personal values.
Just a few thoughts. And yours?
UPDATE: Here's an idea from Slate about the benefits of the Russian system... at least it's more interesting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ahh, Putin. Give me a little while to formulate my reply - I woke up astonishingly late even for me today as I was on the phone with Abu Dhabi late last night and then couldn't sleep.
As far as Ahmadinejad visiting Ground Zero... have other world leaders been allowed to lay wreaths there? If they have, then denying Ahmadinejad is simply silly. What - we don't like you so you can't show respect for the American dead? However, if similar requests from other world leaders have been denied for security reasons, then I suppose it's fair.
Ahmadinejad has some highly questionable rhetoric, but if we're allowing him into the US as a representative of his country, we should treat him the same as we treat other foreign diplomats.
Ahmadinejad wasn't allowed to lay the wreath becasue apparently the whole site is off-limits now due to construction. Not just to him or other world leaders, but everyone. That's the miscommunication issue I mentioned-- instead of saying that, someone from NYPD announced that they were still considering it, and people got riled up. And I agree, he should be treated the same by our government as other foreign diplomats.
Post a Comment