VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
On Air Where to Watch Schedule 
breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Forums   Politics   Was Russia's presidential election free and fair?  
   
Was Russia's presidential election free and fair?
John 24 January, 2008, 17:10 Yes they will be free and fair…but really boring. We all know who the winner will be Mr Medvedev. He is after all the the anointed one. Please why go through this charade of an election when the result is already decided. The only interesting aspect is how many will vote for him and the percentage he receives. I predict 67 % two percent more than united Russia got at the rather un-exciting Duma election. Regular John.
quote
0
fred 24 January, 2008, 17:16 ?? asking the question is ALREADY a sign that some have (or can have) some doubts about it .! as i wrote before , there 2 main issues into that question : Russians : they should make sure the guy who is going to be elected is the one they want ! and should NOT care about what some "loud" voices from the west are saying . Non russians : who are we to interfere in some other country's buissness ?? better to find out ways to have peacefull cooperation than infuriating potential elected president and russian citizens .!
quote
0
khoren 24 January, 2008, 18:21 I would like to assure you that Russia’s presidential election will not be free and fair.
quote
+1
Robert (U.S.) 24 January, 2008, 18:44 Yes if the voting ballots are brought to the voting places in by armored vehicles. All the ballots are well numbered and easy accountable. All people are sworne officers and held liable if any ballots are missing. And this officers would be punished if any ballots or missing.Then picked up in armored vehicles.
quote
+1
Sevodnya_Net 24 January, 2008, 19:36 My view is that, like the Parliamentary election, this Presidential one will be as free, on the day, as any anywhere but that in a broader context it will have been far from fair. The impression I have gained over the last few years is that the Kremlin has worked assiduously through various means to implement policies and regulations, and encourage activities, which actively discourage a pluralistic, and hence unpredictable, political culture. We have seen restrictions on access to mainstream media, a raising of the threshhold for parties to enter the Duma, and the obstruction through various means of potential outlets for genuine opposition and dissent. Hence Mr Kasparov and Mr Kasyanov for example have seen attempts to register their political parties thwarted by, on the face of it, petty, almost comical objections. And of course the "unofficial" candidates for this election face the prospect of having to garner enormous numbers of signatures to confirm their participation. Mainstream media seems almost entirely focussed on one candidate. The fact that there isn't really an effective opposition isn't simply due to the factors I've mentioned of course, and it really is too late to hope that somehow before March 2 the election is going to become "interesting". The Kremlin don't really want an "interesting" election in that sense and I have to admit that I don't really blame them on that. I do wish the new President all the very best when he takes over. If I had a vote I'd probably vote for him myself, especially if the only opposition turns out to be Zhirinovsky!
quote
+1
DD 24 January, 2008, 22:59 For the Russian people : The elections will be free and fair. Everybody, including the "West" do know Russia's peoples' choise to continue the great work. For the so called "West": They will be unfair, because their choise (Kasparov)won't get even 10%! Why? Because the Russian people want a TRUE RUSSIAN president. Suggestion: Please since Mr Kasparov is much more popular in some Western countries, why doesn't he run for president in these other countries? Already he speaks English fluently!!
quote
0
Sevodnya_Net 25 January, 2008, 11:33 I can confidently predict that Mr Kasparov will get 0%, as he isn't actually standing. The reason that he isn't standing is of course a matter of some debate :-) And it isn't only the west, or "liberal elements" who say that the whole process isn't fair. Most notably the Communist party also (rightly or wrongly) claim this, which is why their candidate might not even bother standing.
quote
0
Norman 25 January, 2008, 17:36 As I see it: Zyugannov is still a Communist, and will get a small portion of the votes ( maybe second place ). Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a colourful character and has some valid concerns. He will probably be third place. Bogdanov will probably be last, a virtual unknown ( like Ralph Nader in the US). Between President Putin's support and the sudden interest in social and economic programmes, Medvedev will probably win the election. Atleast it's better than the Clinton vs Obama battle. My picks for the US elections: Clinton or Obama vs. McCain.
quote
+1
Misha 25 January, 2008, 18:12 The Russian elections are fair. Mr Kasparov simply has no base of support in Russia; he was and is a creation and a candidate of the West. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently pointed out, when Kasparov was recently arrested for staging an illegal demonstration (one without a police permit). When he was arrested he began speaking and complaining to the assembled news cameras only in English, not in Russian. This is because Kasparov's "base" is in the West. I doubt if he could get 1 percent of the vote in Russia. And the US allows illegal demonstrations (without a permit)? In Washington DC? At the Capital or the White House? No, they do not. So why didn't Kasparov simply get a permit? The authorities wouldn't issue it to him? No. If he had gotten a permit then there would have been no "incident" with the police, but it was precisely the "incident" that Mr. Kasparov wanted and needed to create. There would be no drama without it and no reason for him to be ranting to the foreign TV cameras in English as he was hauled away by police in cuffs (to be released shortly afterwards). The Russian people revile Mr. Kasparov and his methods. His base of support is abroad, certainly not in Russa. He is the darling of the Americans and the West; no God-fearing patriotic Russian would be caught dead voting for a Kasparov. The Russian elections are fair. The candidate who gets the largest number of votes will win. Will Mr. Medvedev win? Yes, almost certainly. But the reason he will win is that he is the hand picked successor of an extremely popular president, Mr. Putin, and that ought to enable MR. Medvedev to garner a majority of the votes. What those who challenge the "fairness" of Russia's elections cannot explain is how it is that all public opinion polls continue to reflect Vladimir Putin's extremely high public support. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of Russian citizens are happy with Putin and the job he is doing and consistently support the president. No, these figures are not "concocted" in the Kremlin; the poll results are the same regardless of whether the polling agency is Russian or foreign (such as Gallup organization, which has been free to operate in Russia for years). So why would anyone expect a different result in a Russian election, other than the result where the guy who is the overwhelming favorite wins? When you are disappointed because the Russian people elect the guy they want, you complain that it is "unfair", and there is a "lack of democracy" in Russia. Balderdash! Hogwash! Poppycock! President Vladimir Putin inherited a Russia from Mr. Yeltsin that was basically in a state of chaos and free fall, in every way, economically, socially, militarily, and in every other way! President Putin stopped the hemorrhaging and then reversed it, bringing back Russia stronger and better, and much more stable. Real standards of living have improved dramatically under Putin's leadership, and not only the billionaire oligarchs, as happened under Yeltsin. The West is not happy with the direction that Mr. Putin has taken Russia; this is understood. But it is also too damned bad! Who in the world likes Mr. Bush (outside of the USA I mean)? Who really thought the American people would elect him for a 2nd time in 2004? But they did. Bush is the American's choice, not Russia's choice or the European's choice. Likewise Mr. Putin is the choice of the Russian people, or at least the vast majority of them. If you don't like that then it is your problem, not Putin's or Russia's problem! Mr. Putin stands tall as a patriotic and strong Russian leader for Russian people. He speaks to voters in Russian, not an alien language. He does not look over the people's heads and direct his campaign rhetoric to the Western TV cameras in the back row. If you want to talk about "democracy," then we should not talk about Russia. We should talk about how a man who got 550,000 fewer votes than his opponent got still stole the office. This did not happen in Russia, but right in the USA, which claims to be the world headquarters of "democracy." Source: US Federal Election Commission; Official Election Results) See here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm I know some Americans will try to excuse such an anti-democratic election. They will say "We are a republic, not a democracy," and so forth. Okay, fine. But then the US has no moral authority to preach or lecture to Russia or to other countries about democracy. The US has zero rights to criticize others just because the US says they fall short of "US democratic standards." This is complete nonsense and it is transparently hypocritical on the part of the US. In Russia it would be impossible for the man with fewer votes to "win" the general election, by some miracle in the constitution; it is absurd, antidemocratic and indefensible! The US only has two political parties (Only TWO, can you imagine!) There may be other parties, but one of these two ruling parties will always win every time (with or without a majority of the votes as we see). They tell Americans that if you vote for the opposition (not one of the two main ruling parties), then you are "wasting your vote," because that 3rd party has no chance to win, zero. So Russia is currently a single-party state, with Putin's "United Russia" Party. (It offers a very big tent to accomodate all Russians of every walk of life.) The United States is supposed to be "better" than Russia, only because it has two ruling parties (not just one). So in the US, the "two party system" gives the people the illusion of choice, when in fact there is no real choice. All of the really important decisions have been made, and they are agreed by both parties on a "bi-partisan basis." It is not possible for anyone advocating real change -- a true "opposition" -- to break into this system. It would be as if President Putin created two parties, instead of just one, let's say "United Russia-Left" and "United Russia-Right." I suppose that would make the Americans happy, because then Russia's political system would be a carbon copy of the American system. In that case Russian voters could take their pick of the two candidates, just like the Americans do. But Russia would certainly not be more "democratic" if it did this. Currently Russia is not less "democratic" than the US is. Many many countries have been ruled by a single ruling party for decades, and the US supported that party and found no apparent problem with this. For example, Mexico, S.Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and many other strong US allies have been ruled by a single ruling party for decades. (This is only a partial list of those "single ruling party" countries with which the US has had strong and friendly relations for decades; it does not include the many many outright dictatorships which the US has also supported, which have been even more numerous.) Russia currently has a single dominant ruling party. That is because Russian democracy is new, and this arrangement is the best one to maintain stability of a newly born democracy (as it was also with the examples cited above). This arrangement helps insure the stability of Russia, of course. But what we must understand is that in Russia's case (only in Russia's case), it is precisely this stability that he west desperately wants to undermine. In the future Russia will transition from one ruling party to a "two-party system," like the Americans have. Then Russia will not only be as "democratic" as the US is, but it will appear to be so too. This should remove the basis for the current unfounded and hypocritical and hysterical criticism of Russia and its leadership. As President Putin has explained, Russia is a "sovereign democracy." The Russian state is a democracy, but only a democracy by of and for the Russian people. The participation of foreigners and their governments (and their NGOs and whatnot) is not welcome in Russia. It is precisely the inability of western governments and their security agencies to undermine and destabilize Russia which is making them crazy. They cannot pull a "Orange Revolution" in Russia, to steal Russia's government from her people, because Russia's security services, lead by President Vladimir Putin, have stopped them cold. This makes them go insane and this is the only reason why they constantly attack Russia. No one should be the slightest bit confused about this. Peace, -Misha
quote
-1
Sevodnya_Net 25 January, 2008, 20:21 Norman: "At least it's better than the Clinton vs Obama battle" Surely you are joking - even I, no fan of American politics, would grudgingly have to admit that the US primaries are actually quite interesting this year. What "battle" exactly do you foresee in the Russian election: perhaps the battle to unload all those boxes of signatures without giving oneself a hernia, and count them without falling asleep :-) Everything about this election is entirely predictable, including the Kasyanov "dodgy signatures" story. In the next few days we'll doubtless start getting the tedious game of diplomatic sparring between the Kremlin and the OSCE. Russia doesn't do interesting elections any more. There was a mild flirtation with the concept in the 90s, but the powers that be have since decided that the people can do without all that messiness thank you very much.
quote
0
Misha 25 January, 2008, 23:00 “What "battle" exactly do you foresee in the Russian election?” There will be not battle, not really, because the Russian political system is a single-party system, rules by President Putin’s United Russia party. This system of having one ruling party is common in the world, and it was the case in Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and many other close US allies. Elections were not exactly cliff-hangers in those countries either, as the ruling party always won. (That’s why they call it a ruling party.) Read about the PRI (Mexico’s ruling party) here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec99/dedazo.html Read about the LDP (Japan’s one ruling party) here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5362398.stm Read about Korea’s ruling party (backing US war in Iraq) here: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/23/asia/AS_GEN_SKorea_Iraq_Troop_Withdrawal.php Of course I could go on and on. These are only a handful of references to countries that are ruled by a “one party system” (single ruling party), as opposed to the US system of rulership by two ruling parties (Democrats and Republicans). Other examples of the two-party system are The UK, Germany, Australia, etc. (Two main parties with various other minor parties). Of course the argument can be made that a one-party (ruling party) system is okay as a country makes a transition from some sort of “emergency rule” to a normal democracy. For example, South Korea after the Korean War, or Japan after WWII. Having one single ruling party can impart a strong sense of stability and order to a country. It is much more difficult to justify such a state of affairs 50, 60 or 70 years later, as in the case of the examples above. How come these strong US allies (and US client states) never bothered to make a transition to normal multi-party democracy? Or why didn’t the US put more pressure on them? The answer of course is simple: The US is not now and has never been a force for “democracy” in the world, as it now pretends to be. It is simply not a priority for American foreign policy. The US will support any regime that protects its interests in the world. This includes not only the “single ruling party” states I mentioned above, but many more outright dictatorships as well (King of Saudi Arabia, King of Jordan, Mubarak in Egypt – President for Life; Pinochet in Chile; the government of South Vietnam, The Shaw of Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, and on and on and on and on…) No, the US is not the “Bastion of Democracy” in the world that it now pretends to be. It is anything but that. The US in conjunction with its closest European allies currently runs a worldwide system of secret prison camps, torture centers, and a secret airline which transports US-abducted persons all around the world, with the victims given zero constitutional or civil rights. As I pointed out in my original post, the US itself put a man in the White House who received 550,000 fewer votes than his opponent received. Not that it matters much. The US system is ruled by only two parties (only two!) They’ve been in power for decades, more than a century. Both of them are in fact ruled by the same single party, the American ruling class, which is amazingly stable and resilient, and which clings to political power for its dear life. The idea that the US is ”free” and “democratic” because the ball gets passed back and forth every few years from the Democrats to the Republicans is frankly absurd, and I think even most Americans intuitively know this. But what can they do? Power is so consolidated in the US that literally “resistance is futile.” The dominant political perspective in the US is not support for one of the two parties, but rather simple political apathy. (Most people sit the elections out and don’t bother to cast a vote, because they say, “it doesn’t really matter anyway,” and they are correct.) The real sign of absolute power and control is not a party or government which must constantly “prove” its power by defending its rule, through the use of violence against its people; but rather the real sign of total control is the regime which so completely controls its people, their lives, their media, even their very categories of though and being, that it hardly ever needs to use violence to keep people in line. The people are so convinced that the regime is willing to use violence against them that they would never dare to test it. But make no mistake about it, the American ruling class is capable of utter ruthlessness, and they will use deadly violence “against their own people,” or against anyone, if their rule is every threatened by something like a genuine “opposition” or a revolution. The spirit that took the African slaves and wiped out the American Indians is still the sprit that rules the United States. That spirit is alive and well in the person of one George W Bush, and his mad quest to extend US military control over the oil resources in the Middle East, regardless of how many American and Iraqi bodies he must step over to do it. As I said, all the important decisions are already made. What is left for American politicians to fight about (and yes they do fight like cats and dogs) are only the relatively trivial and meaningless “political” issues, which then get blown out of all proportions in a media spectacle, precisely because politicians cannot talk about the really important issues. Here are some GENUINE political questions for the USA, which would be asked if the US was a democracy: 1) Should the US economic system be capitalist or socialist? 2) Should NATO continue to exist now that the USSR and Warsaw Pact are gone? 3) Should the US abandon its archaic (but highly profitable) health care system in favor of a “single payer” system, such as every other industrial country in the world has? 4) Should the Federal Reserve continue to control the US money supply? 5) And on and on… Now HERE’S the example of the so-called hot “political issues” that actually get argued about between the two parties in American elections, since the real issues (above) have already been taken off the table by the ruling class (which rules both parties): 1) School prayer, for or against? 2) The flag, good or bad? 3) Abortion 4) Terry Schavo 5) Did Bill Clinton really get "serviced" in the oval office? 6) And on and on and on… So, yes, you are quite correct when you say that the candidates “fight” in US presidential elections. In fact millions of people are even obsessed over these so-called “political” disputes. There are now many 24/7 “cable news” networks, which spoon feed these deep “political conflicts” to the citizenry day and night. For some people such political shows are even addictive. But these so-called “political conflicts” between the two main parties more closely resemble a staged professional wrestling match than anything like genuine a genuine political disputes over fundamental issues of first principle. In truth these “political disputes” (between the two parties) are little more than an endless show; these disputes are “entertainment” not “news.” True, the outcome of US elections is not pre-determined, but that is only true because it does not matter. The contests between the candidates are really little more than conflicts over personality and ego (which face the Americans will have to look at on TV for the next 4 or 8 years). Every major issue (the real issues) are determined. The “fighting” between a Hillary Clinton and a Barak Obama is not a genuine political disagreement over issues of first principles, but an ago-driven popularity contest between two candidates who agree on the vast majority of issues. And the same could be said when comparing Obama or Hillary to John McCain. The differences are really differences in style more than of substance. The United States is not “more democratic” then Russia is. The US is only more developed, with a longer tradition of political stability. The US has developed a sophisticated two-party system of consolidating political control that makes Russia look like a rank amateur by contrast (which it is). But Russia’s “single-party” system is the most common system for newly emerging countries (as in the examples I gave above), especially after a period of war or great turmoil, such as Russia has experienced quite recently. What is motivating the USA (and the West in general) to attack Russian democracy is not that Russia’s political system is objectively worse than many other Western allies and client states, or even that the Russian system is worse than the system in these western countries themselves, but rather that Russia’s system exists outside of their direct control. This is precisely the thing they cannot stand and which makes them insane each time they think about Russia again. (Isn’t it obvious?) The goal of the West and especially of the United States is to destroy the Russian Federation the same way the USSR was destroyed, by dismembering Russia into smaller parts, and then crushing each part individually. To this end the West has attempted to infiltrate and undermine Russia’s newly born democratic institutions. This involves coordinated activities between well-financed so-called “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) and the various national intelligence services in the west. For a textbook example of how this is done one need only look at the Ukrainian so-called “Orange Revolution,” which effectively stole the Ukrainian government from its people and delivered it to the control of the West. When Ukrainian voters realized their mistake and attempted to reverse the Orange Revolution, they found out what Georgia’s voters also recently learned: These “revolutions” can only go on one direction; the voters cannot reverse them. These western-backed governments are utterly cynical and totally ruthless, and they will use violence and kill their own people to put down anyone who dares to challenge their rule (and by extension the rule of the West). But Russia’s voters acted in time, and elevated a man well-trained by Russia’s security services, President Vladimir Putin; so Russia was saved, but with not a moment to spare! President Putin well-trained and wise to the ways of the enemy and he will never let Holy Mother Russia be destroyed by the Americans and their lackeys in the West! Thank God for Vladimir Putin! He is truly a great man and a Russian saint! We can only hope that Russia’s future leaders will have as much courage and wisdom as President Putin has, in order to keep Russia’s mortal enemies outside her gates. In time Russia will transition from a single ruling party to a two-party system. Russia will not take 100 years to do this (as has been the case with the US-backed countries I listed above); but Russia will do this only on her own timetable, when she is ready and when her own sovereign democratic institutions are strong enough to withstand the change. Russia will do this when the time is right, and not because it is “dictated” to her by the US and the West. Russia will never be dictated too by any nation! Russia has lost too much of the blood of her children fighting for her liberty to ever accept the chains of any nation. The US has no authority whatsoever to dictate anything to Russia. There is nothing more laughable to a Russian that the image of that African-American woman Condoleezza Rice preaching her pedantic lectures down at Russia, as if Russians are children, in need of their Mother Goose. What right does Condoleezza Rice have to tell Russia what its policy on gas, foreign policy, defense or anything else ought to be? Ridiculous! Absurd! Outrageous! Mir, -Misha
quote
0
Daniel 26 January, 2008, 09:07 Misha: the election systems of Russia and the US are different. The US President is "indirectly" elected, while Russia's is "directly" elected. In 1993 Bill Clinton won on about 43% (a pluralty), but had a majority in the electoral college. Had they used the two rounds system like France and Russia uses then electing a president would be less fradulent (not to mention confusing). Also in govenment elections they continue to used the First-Past-The-Post voting system which tends to produce two strong parties (except in Vermont). Russia's previous "Supplementary Voting" system was better then the current one. The Party-List voting system, while it might have it's uses wasn't fair, it decimated the liberal parties because of the rediculously high threshold (7%). Putin didn't need to change the voting system, he has popular support, but changing the voting system aswell as questionable acts regarding media freedom in Russia have caused concern. But having said that Putin and probably Medvedev would be a billion times better then having the "Liberal Democrats" in power
quote
0
sam 26 January, 2008, 09:45 Well said Misha but however very long post. I would like to add that there is no true democracy anywhere in this world.American system is very different from the British parliamentary system.This system does not even give a voter a chance to vote for our leader.How democratic is that.The boss of the winning party becomes your PM.I voted for my labour MP who is a great guy who did a lot for my ward but indirectly I was voting for Blair who took me into an unpopular war on a fake reason.Tell me is that democracy? How else do you think Blair who had the lowest rating in history remained the PM? Also when did we elect Mr.Brown into power? He was not even the next in line but the third.I dont remember any elections at all. I think Russia will work out its own form of democracy what ever it will be.At least it would be better then some USA allies like saudi arabia were people have no say and still USA sees no problems there. Kasparov is a joke,Just like the "monster raving loony party" we have here in the UK.they at least do it for a joke.putting candidate forward at every election with dumb promises for fun.Kasparov whatever his motive does not even have a proper manifesto.He thinks speaking english will win him votes and russian sympathy.He is not that stupid,the show he staged was not for them.Him not standing comes like no surprise to me. As for the communists.Well after the breakup of the USSR,with the hardship that followed many people just wanted it back.Now with better living their popularity is falling.Dont see many wanting them back.
quote
0
Elected 27 January, 2008, 19:42 Why not? The election process is the thing that counts, not who or by how much? And I dare anybody to find any MAJOR FAULT with the electioin process in RF, except the 7% cut off registration point. In that also, there is a major reason, the fact that below 10% popular support, any popular party cannot hope to win any mandate for governance, only one for disturbance, in effect for creating obstacles for 'effective governance' which contributes to the general well-being and development of the UNION and its citizens.And isn't that what people want? I consider the French, Serbian two-tier system the most effective and that is what RF has and what most western countries don't, especially not what US with its ridiculous [DRAMA] of elections!
quote
0
Sevodnya_Net 27 January, 2008, 22:57 Of course there are many countries all over the world with less democratic systems than Russia. But RT were kind enough to open a debate on the election in that country. While it is interesting to note how, for example, the USA, say, seems to get very worked up about democracy in certain countries and not in others, that fact shouldn't distract us from the main issue. I am not convinced by the argument that Russia is a "young" democracy and hasn't had time to form properly. I suppose one thinks of the birth of democracy in Russia as coinciding with fall of the USSR, the implication being that this precious little embryo of "democracy" has been lovingly nurtured ever since but isn't yet complete. In fact that isn't at all how political culture has developed in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact a democratic culture opened up very quickly in Russia post-USSR. But it was a culture which, while welcome and necessary, was flawed, as it came from the top down, having its seeds sown in the Communist party principles of glasnost and perestroika. MS Gorbachev, the greatest and most visionary leader Russia has had in modern times, began a system of empowerment and education of the Russian (Soviet at that time) people the like of which had certainly never been seen since the 1917 revolution and proabably never in history. Unfortunately Gorbachev for all his "visionariness" believed that the future was still the Communist party, and that that party could, on its own, lead the Soviet Union/Russia to the promised land. In the end he was swept away, not from the right as many in the West predicted and despite a failed coup by the old guard, but by the populist left under Yeltsin. Yeltsin then embarked on a series of catastrophic economic reforms which impoverished millions, using the executive powers he had - or claimed he had - to ride roughshod over the parliament. The parliamentary rebellion was short lived, but its defeat sowed some of the seeds for the situation we see today. The Russian people, not unnaturally, were completely disillusioned by Yeltsin and looked set to vote the communists back to power. Only a series of extremely dodgy manoeuvrings by many of the so-called liberal political class - and an election in 1996 which many believe was rigged against the communists, rescued Yeltsin from political oblivion. So one could say that democracy was effectively killed off in Russia for the future, by different factors and for very different reasons. Yelstin held on to his power, but the methods that were used to prop him up (so to speak) were to be used again to devastating effect by the new "revolutionaries" of Putin and co at the dawn of the 21st century. These people have exploited a number of factors to enable them to take and hold on to power. Most if not all of those have resulted in reversing processes which had actually already begun and developed. It may be that they will start developing again with Mr Medvedev, but it seems yet another example of a "top down" attempt to manage a country's political culture. "Sovereign democracy" might seem sensible approach, but it seems very much to me like parents trying to develop a new proxy breathing system for their child: it's the parents who do this new breathing, but how on earth do you transfer your invention to your child??
quote
0
Sevodnya_Net 27 January, 2008, 23:52 "Those in power got scared of an open political contest. The hopes of millions of Russian people that there will be a free and fair election have been dashed,” The words of a Western critic? No, a former PM of the country, quoted form elsewhere on this website. I am a bit confused now because Kasyanov is a well-known politician whereas Bogdanov is comparatively unknown, and yet guess which of the two managed to raise 2 million signatures. And did Kasyanov actually need to raise the signatures? One commentator seems to think he did not. But then why indulge in a self-defeating political stunt to prove the fraudulence of the election? Those who think it's a farce really don't need any more convincing.
quote
0
Alberto 28 January, 2008, 23:31 Will Russia's Presidential election be free and fair? Of course it will. However, those who want to learn about about unfree and unfair elections need look no further than http://www.youtube/user/BlackBoxVoting
quote
0
Sanjay 31 January, 2008, 14:17 There are two questions. Will elections be free. This one is simple and the answer is a qualified yes. Will elections be fair: The answer to this question is in the roots of the extremely unstable political system of Russia. Due to more than five centuries of Tsarist Russian Rule, presidential executive powers are absolutist and there are no checks and balances in the form of a powerful Duma and Judiciary which can preserve the policies demanded by national interest. And what is National Interest: It is the security, prosperity, greatness, and the competitiveness of its citizens. With this as the measure of NI, Russia indeed is doing very poorly and this reflects in the unfairness of the political process and consequently the unfairness of the elections. Elections will be unfair not simply because of the issues related with the access of media and political liberties for other candidates but the still deeper underlying problems of the utter nihilism of the ruling elite. One must go back to the dissolution of soviet union. Despite a public referendum overwhelmingly in favor of preserving the union, Yeltsin went ahead and dissolved the union unconstitutionally. And he succeeded precisely because of the betrayel of SU by elements of its own ruling elite. Not because of american containment and arms race. Except the baltics, the caucasus and moldova the rest 8 republics wanted to preserve the union and lead it to modernity with a gradual and less catastrophic transition. That was what was unfair. So these deep underlying causes emnating as the betrayal, nihilism and treacherousness of the russian elite towards their own country will make the elections unfair. The signs are ominous. Already Kudrin, Medvedev and their Cabal are voicing that Russia should revert to Yeltsin era foreign policy and economics. Appeasement of Britain is being openly proposed knowing fully well what the real intentions behind British council are. One wonders why Putin made such a grave mistake. Elections will be unfair because of the peoples inability to listen to debates and choose their own candidates. Kremlin does the choosing and no wonder it will lead to disasters.
quote
0
Misha 1 February, 2008, 04:45 "In 1993 Bill Clinton won on about 43% (a plurality), but had a majority in the electoral college. Had they used the two rounds system like France and Russia uses then electing a president would be less fraudulent (not to mention confusing)." 1) Bill Clinton won the election in November of 1992, not 1993. He took office in January of 1993. 2) The so-called "French system", which features a "first round" of voting between all the candidates, and then a "second round" of voting only between the top two candidates who got the most votes in the first round seems fair enough. What can be said FOR this system is that in the "first round" voters are free to chose whoever they want, and to "vote their conscious." So socialists can vote for the Socialist; fascists can vote for fascists, and right wingers can vote for the most right wing nut they can find. But then in the second round voters must decide only between the TWO candidates who got the most votes in the first round. All the other candidates are excluded from the second round. But if no candidate gets a majority in the first round, then voting goes to a second round, where only the two candidates who finished first and second in the first round can run. (This second round of course must produce a "winner", with the majority of votes, so the winner can always then claim a "mandate to govern," unless the two candidates split millions of votes literally 50-50, which could never happen.) The main problem with this system is exactly what we saw happen in France, in the 2002 elections. What happened there was that the left-wing vote represented the vast majority of French voters. But that vote got split between two left-wing candidates in the "first round" of voting. This split caused the left-wing to finish neither first nor second, even though together the left-wing had a large majority of votes. Consequently the "second round" (final vote) was conducted only between Jacques Chirac (the unpopular right wing candidate) and Jean-Marie Le Pen (the completely insane fascist candidate). So the splitting of the left-vote (the large majority) in the first round, lead to a second round between a right winger and a fascist. This is hardly a "democratic" result by any standard. To apply this to an American analogy, we can imagine McCain, Obama, Hillary, and all the rest of them running in the first round, just as they are now. Then let's say they all split the first round votes more or less evenly (each of them getting between 10 and 12 percent of the total vote). So what happens in the 2nd (final) round then? Maybe that round is between Jesse Jackson with 14 percent of the vote (#1), and David Duke with 13 percent of the vote (#2). Who can say? So which one of those two would you vote for in the 2nd round, and how is such an election "democratic" in any way? Here is the story about the 2002 French elections from Wikipedia: At the age of 69, Chirac faced his fourth presidential campaign in 2002. He was the first choice of fewer than one in five voters in the first round of voting of the presidential elections in April 2002. It had been expected that he would face incumbent prime minister Lionel Jospin (PS) in the second round of elections; instead, Chirac faced controversial far right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen of the law-and-order, anti-immigrant National Front (FN), and so won re-election by a landslide (82%); all parties outside the National Front (except for Lutte ouvrière) had called for opposing Le Pen, even if it meant voting for Chirac. Slogans such as "vote for the crook, not for the fascist" or "vote with a clothespin on your nose" appeared, while huge demonstrations marked the period between the two electoral rounds in all of France.
quote
0
Regular_John 2 February, 2008, 15:32 As we all know the out come this will be a very boring election. I predicted Medvedev would get about 67 % of the vote. As he is now running at 75 % in the polls you have to ask why are the other 3 candidates bothering to run. It’s a shame that Russia has now become a one party state called United Russia with Mr Putin and his ex KGB partners controlling every aspect of Russian life. The only real opposition within Russia seem to be the old aged pensioners .Putin has recognised that these fiery bunch may vote against his anointed one the boy king Medvedev. So to keep them happy he has frozen prices on essential food products until after the election when no doubt they will shoot up in price in line with Russia’s rampant inflation rate. Medvedev will not debate with the other candidates true he has nothing to gain from this exercise ( except respect ) but it would be a good opportunity for him to stop reading from auto- ques and pre written speeches and show the people he will be serving that he is capable of independent thought and has his own vision for Russia. The only indicator that now matters is voter turn-out if 75 % or above go to the polls and vote then the Russian people have shown that they are happy with a one party state and the direction the country is taking. If there is a low turn say under 60 % then all is not well with Russia’s current political system and maybe it would encourage other parties to modernise elect new leaders and fight harder for the publics vote instead of desperately trying not to tread on the toes of Mr Putin and united Russia. As there seems to be more and more “johns” posting I will now use the name regular john.
quote
0
next 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
POST COMMENT
CAPTCHA
On Air Talent RT mobile Corporate profile Job opportunities Partners Закупки Press releases Advertise with RT All RT sites

Legal disclaimer Feedback Contact us © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2012. All rights reserved.