Will direct public feedback on policymaking be effective in Russia?


Val 10 September, 2009, 09:42	In Russia people want to be ruled by a 'strong hand', they need a leader they can follow, as there's no tradition of democracy as such and it cannot appear in 10-20 years, but takes generations. It's a good idea, that discussion originated by Medvedev, but it won't work. permalink quote 0 Val
Elmira 10 September, 2009, 09:53	It would be interesting to try this, precisely because we don't have a tradition of speaking out.This should be changed, it's time to learn. permalink quote 0 Elmira
Roger 10 September, 2009, 15:02	There's no point in debating the effectiveness or otherwise - nothing will change either way. It's just a "feel good" exercise. Not that this is an exclusively Russian thing. As long as people think they have a say, they will be more forgiving of mistakes and problems. permalink quote 0 Roger
Hu Chi 10 September, 2009, 15:04	Russia is not a democracy, China is not a democracy, even the U.S. isn't one anymore. There is no real democracy in the world. What the public says or does will have little effect on national politics, unless some huge event like a revolution takes place. permalink quote 0 Hu Chi
Matt J. 10 September, 2009, 15:08	The public needs to be united in order to achieve anything. Divide and conquer is what world leaders have done to their own people, and as long as that's the case it will be almost impossible for the people to get anything important passed through the echelons of power. permalink quote 0 Matt J.
Cryptoprocta 10 September, 2009, 15:47	There are numerous other ways for the political establishment to learn the effect of their policymaking on ordinary citizens. No need to invent something else. The real trouble here is that most Russians have no idea of what's good and what's bad for them, which way is up and which one is down. What kind of feedback do you expect in this case? The one Pavlov's dog could provide would make more sence. permalink quote 0 Cryptoprocta
007 10 September, 2009, 18:53	Russia is a new country shedding an old system… I think it’s a good idea. If you an entrepreneur with a good idea for your town, its worth a try. I like Russia’s leadership, wish ours would work so hard in my country, and when they said to the bankers, you don’t foreclose on people in this financial crisis, I nearly fell off my chair… I thought, they're not banking puppets! Worth a try, it might just change your life… I understand the international skepticism and it’s also why young people don’t vote in most countries… they say, “nothing ever changes, the bankers own us all anyway”. But this is also why there is a growing public world interest in Russia… maybe this time people will actually run their country… I hope so. permalink quote 0 007
snowyone 12 September, 2009, 04:32	Russia Today is an old country duped by a false democracy first publicised by Plato where the super rich hold all the power via there "talk shop" euphemized as the "parly-amend house" - commonly known as the House of Parliament. This false democracy denies the overwhelming bulk of the population in any Society today from any voice in "politics" save on one day - Polling Day. Russia needs to survive in the modern World by re-embracing Proletarian Democracy within it as a Proletarian State. This rebirth - this renaissance - "process" can be found within "it's" 20/21 Century history. Is it timely for "Two Steps Forward" after the disatrously gigantic "One Step Back" at the end of the 1980's? "What's To Be Done?" "Where To Begin?" anew? Lenin and his profound analysis of the form and content of Dialectical Materialism and the discovery of the Social "Law" of "Satisfaction of Rising Needs" of the "Owners of the Means of Production and Distribution" - the "Class Conscious Proletarians" within the "State of the Whole People" has the answer!! The Voice of the Workers needs to be heeded. Reliance on fraudsters and userers as the mainstay in Russia Today is now a "Look After You Have Leapt" philosophical pariah!! Fear of the [sic?] power of Imperialism can no longer be a banner to hide behind!! The choice of ideology and policy will alone determine the economics of any State and the welfare of its People. Such is commonsense "Common Law"!! ///snowyone. permalink quote 0 snowyone
K.e 13 September, 2009, 10:07	It is the Kernel of something bigger. As said previously the 'democracy' system in the west in which the two 'opposing' sides via for control and the appearance of control can only work while the people believe that the people they vote are the one's running things. now we have been witnessing the slow demise of that system as oo7 commented on there previous, and even Russia has tried to create twice an opposition party to deal with this effect. the essential missing part of the equation is as it has always been the loss of confidence by the people, this loss of confidence is Directly attributed to the free flow of information. so systems have two primary options: 1. Try close down the flow of information (wooh my key logger is making my keyboard slow) 2. develop a new system that incorporates that effect that information will have on citizens. If you look carefully most places are trying to close free information down, they long for the good old days of TV and Radio. the new system relies on the direct interaction of the people. Whatever is being started here is definitely a step towards the 2nd and right direction, it is just basic fact that going forward these are the primary options. Essentially a system like this eventually should be able to make redundant the false opposition parties. Then at that stage I’m not sure if you even still call it democracy maybe it’s something new. for those of you that are completely negative, i just say and what is the alternative? i think all crticism is welcome and constructive, that's the idea isn't it? permalink quote 0 K.e
k.e. 13 September, 2009, 10:29	Years ago when i saw the movie 1984, i had an idea about large screens in public places with basically just displayed public forums, or public forum boards: Basically any comment that could be started, could be stated by any citizen the system could work in threads, people could contribute via home or submit comments via wireless or blue tooth directly to the board. Topics could be as menial as the state of the Pet ownership laws to as complex as pressing foreign policy issues, the flow of information of the people interested would drive the importance of the topic (which could be listed by an among other things to be listed by importance), also the system is (self regulating) basically the less moderation the better, also the sorting of information is pretty much (self regulating) it all becomes a farce at the point when people comment and feel that they are being moderated or not being displayed, not matter how extreme some comments can seem, one would see the tide of reaction back to the comment. At any time a citizen could switch the board between the common threads, and things of importance could be directed to the top or important headings. I thought of the boards being a Public service primarily for older people most people would contribute at home or at work or wherever but being public or semi public means that they could check an issue that they commented on say, on the way to the train, now some people might laugh at me for this idea but tell me how interested YOU are yourself once you have expressed your opinion about something in ‘public’ and someone reacts, does it make you want to get MORE or LESS involved? permalink quote 0 k.e.
k.e 13 September, 2009, 10:31	I know all the possible flaws but if the system was completely un-moderated (within reason) what a benefit to a society. I have always thought the idea of the forum or Internet board just like say this one right here> have been revolutionary, people take them for granted but as I asked a friend, before these existed how could any one INDIVIDUAL share an opinion with multiple other INDIVDUALS around the world simultaneously? Think about it, the things we take for granted are sometimes revolutionary in themselves , so idea’s like this are not so revolutionary or crazy either. permalink quote 0 k.e
Dennis Garcia 13 September, 2009, 18:51	yes it can, so as long as it has well organized grass roots support. It is quite obvious that the State will try to undermine it. After all, it cuts into it's interest to control and make us all play by their own rules. The problem I see is that there is not enough information and there are too many agendas out there. There needs to be common interest among many of those groups to be able to consolidate them into a common goal and objective. permalink quote 0 Dennis Garcia
Theon 13 September, 2009, 19:30	How I wish we had a man of Vladimir Putin's stature and integrity in the west. permalink quote 0 Theon
Dim 16 September, 2009, 21:58	It's a new kind of dialog between politics and Russian people. I see no any negativ points in it, and suppose it will promote mutual confidence and responsibility. I mean the stories about empty words. permalink quote 0 Dim
alex stone 20 September, 2009, 09:48	This can be good, and is unique in the sense it comes from the public, and not exclusively through media outlets, who may have their own agenda. (BBC and at least 8 years of anti-russian propaganda, for an example) This is certainly the case in other countries, where everything is more or less sanitized, and any real dissent, or solid questions about the state of society is eagerly dismissed as "extreme" or "radical." I think russians are intelligent enough to grasp the idea here, and give intelligent feedback on the state of their society without holding back, or going over the top. It's already the case that comments to the President's blog has produced results, and the overall tune of those comments seems to highlight corruption at a local level. If this is noticed, and made public, then it may have a positive result that takes russian society further. Just a note of perspective here. In Britain, the land of my birth, corruption is as widespread, and local councils are the worst. There are 2 reasons why this may not be so readily apparent, being the flat refusal of the mainstream press to tackle the real scale of the problem, and the blind loyalty of the system to itself, protecting those who are corrupt against all comers, especially if the council is of the same political colour as the government, although both main parties are as bad as one another. It's unthinkable in Britain that a Prime Minister would publicly demand a business owner fulfill obligations, where workers are disadvantaged, or treated badly, particularly if the business owner is wealthy, and/or makes a political contribution. This is Britain's "soviet" lifestyle, and it's no less damaging to the country, or it's people. Opening up political discourse to the people is a good idea, a brave idea, and if the powers to be are listening, a successful idea. It's unique, and will change as the format takes shape, and evolves, but it will help shape our modern society. permalink quote 0 alex stone

Val 10 September, 2009, 09:42

In Russia people want to be ruled by a 'strong hand', they need a leader they can follow, as there's no tradition of democracy as such and it cannot appear in 10-20 years, but takes generations. It's a good idea, that discussion originated by Medvedev, but it won't work.

permalink quote Val

Elmira 10 September, 2009, 09:53

It would be interesting to try this, precisely because we don't have a tradition of speaking out.This should be changed, it's time to learn.

permalink quote Elmira

Roger 10 September, 2009, 15:02

There's no point in debating the effectiveness or otherwise - nothing will change either way. It's just a "feel good" exercise. Not that this is an exclusively Russian thing. As long as people think they have a say, they will be more forgiving of mistakes and problems.

permalink quote Roger

Hu Chi 10 September, 2009, 15:04

Russia is not a democracy, China is not a democracy, even the U.S. isn't one anymore. There is no real democracy in the world. What the public says or does will have little effect on national politics, unless some huge event like a revolution takes place.

permalink quote Hu Chi

Matt J. 10 September, 2009, 15:08

The public needs to be united in order to achieve anything. Divide and conquer is what world leaders have done to their own people, and as long as that's the case it will be almost impossible for the people to get anything important passed through the echelons of power.

permalink quote Matt J.

Cryptoprocta 10 September, 2009, 15:47

There are numerous other ways for the political establishment to learn the effect of their policymaking on ordinary citizens. No need to invent something else. The real trouble here is that most Russians have no idea of what's good and what's bad for them, which way is up and which one is down. What kind of feedback do you expect in this case? The one Pavlov's dog could provide would make more sence.

permalink quote Cryptoprocta

007 10 September, 2009, 18:53

Russia is a new country shedding an old system… I think it’s a good idea. If you an entrepreneur with a good idea for your town, its worth a try. I like Russia’s leadership, wish ours would work so hard in my country, and when they said to the bankers, you don’t foreclose on people in this financial crisis, I nearly fell off my chair… I thought, they're not banking puppets! Worth a try, it might just change your life… I understand the international skepticism and it’s also why young people don’t vote in most countries… they say, “nothing ever changes, the bankers own us all anyway”. But this is also why there is a growing public world interest in Russia… maybe this time people will actually run their country… I hope so.

permalink quote 007

snowyone 12 September, 2009, 04:32

Russia Today is an old country duped by a false democracy first publicised by Plato where the super rich hold all the power via there "talk shop" euphemized as the "parly-amend house" - commonly known as the House of Parliament. This false democracy denies the overwhelming bulk of the population in any Society today from any voice in "politics" save on one day - Polling Day. Russia needs to survive in the modern World by re-embracing Proletarian Democracy within it as a Proletarian State. This rebirth - this renaissance - "process" can be found within "it's" 20/21 Century history. Is it timely for "Two Steps Forward" after the disatrously gigantic "One Step Back" at the end of the 1980's? "What's To Be Done?" "Where To Begin?" anew? Lenin and his profound analysis of the form and content of Dialectical Materialism and the discovery of the Social "Law" of "Satisfaction of Rising Needs" of the "Owners of the Means of Production and Distribution" - the "Class Conscious Proletarians" within the "State of the Whole People" has the answer!! The Voice of the Workers needs to be heeded. Reliance on fraudsters and userers as the mainstay in Russia Today is now a "Look After You Have Leapt" philosophical pariah!! Fear of the [sic?] power of Imperialism can no longer be a banner to hide behind!! The choice of ideology and policy will alone determine the economics of any State and the welfare of its People. Such is commonsense "Common Law"!! ///snowyone.

permalink quote snowyone

K.e 13 September, 2009, 10:07

It is the Kernel of something bigger. As said previously the 'democracy' system in the west in which the two 'opposing' sides via for control and the appearance of control can only work while the people believe that the people they vote are the one's running things. now we have been witnessing the slow demise of that system as oo7 commented on there previous, and even Russia has tried to create twice an opposition party to deal with this effect. the essential missing part of the equation is as it has always been the loss of confidence by the people, this loss of confidence is Directly attributed to the free flow of information. so systems have two primary options: 1. Try close down the flow of information (wooh my key logger is making my keyboard slow) 2. develop a new system that incorporates that effect that information will have on citizens. If you look carefully most places are trying to close free information down, they long for the good old days of TV and Radio. the new system relies on the direct interaction of the people. Whatever is being started here is definitely a step towards the 2nd and right direction, it is just basic fact that going forward these are the primary options. Essentially a system like this eventually should be able to make redundant the false opposition parties. Then at that stage I’m not sure if you even still call it democracy maybe it’s something new. for those of you that are completely negative, i just say and what is the alternative? i think all crticism is welcome and constructive, that's the idea isn't it?

permalink quote K.e

k.e. 13 September, 2009, 10:29

Years ago when i saw the movie 1984, i had an idea about large screens in public places with basically just displayed public forums, or public forum boards: Basically any comment that could be started, could be stated by any citizen the system could work in threads, people could contribute via home or submit comments via wireless or blue tooth directly to the board. Topics could be as menial as the state of the Pet ownership laws to as complex as pressing foreign policy issues, the flow of information of the people interested would drive the importance of the topic (which could be listed by an among other things to be listed by importance), also the system is (self regulating) basically the less moderation the better, also the sorting of information is pretty much (self regulating) it all becomes a farce at the point when people comment and feel that they are being moderated or not being displayed, not matter how extreme some comments can seem, one would see the tide of reaction back to the comment. At any time a citizen could switch the board between the common threads, and things of importance could be directed to the top or important headings. I thought of the boards being a Public service primarily for older people most people would contribute at home or at work or wherever but being public or semi public means that they could check an issue that they commented on say, on the way to the train, now some people might laugh at me for this idea but tell me how interested YOU are yourself once you have expressed your opinion about something in ‘public’ and someone reacts, does it make you want to get MORE or LESS involved?

permalink quote k.e.

k.e 13 September, 2009, 10:31

I know all the possible flaws but if the system was completely un-moderated (within reason) what a benefit to a society. I have always thought the idea of the forum or Internet board just like say this one right here> have been revolutionary, people take them for granted but as I asked a friend, before these existed how could any one INDIVIDUAL share an opinion with multiple other INDIVDUALS around the world simultaneously? Think about it, the things we take for granted are sometimes revolutionary in themselves , so idea’s like this are not so revolutionary or crazy either.

permalink quote k.e

Dennis Garcia 13 September, 2009, 18:51

yes it can, so as long as it has well organized grass roots support. It is quite obvious that the State will try to undermine it. After all, it cuts into it's interest to control and make us all play by their own rules. The problem I see is that there is not enough information and there are too many agendas out there. There needs to be common interest among many of those groups to be able to consolidate them into a common goal and objective.

permalink quote Dennis Garcia

Theon 13 September, 2009, 19:30

How I wish we had a man of Vladimir Putin's stature and integrity in the west.

permalink quote Theon

Dim 16 September, 2009, 21:58

It's a new kind of dialog between politics and Russian people. I see no any negativ points in it, and suppose it will promote mutual confidence and responsibility. I mean the stories about empty words.

permalink quote Dim

alex stone 20 September, 2009, 09:48

This can be good, and is unique in the sense it comes from the public, and not exclusively through media outlets, who may have their own agenda. (BBC and at least 8 years of anti-russian propaganda, for an example) This is certainly the case in other countries, where everything is more or less sanitized, and any real dissent, or solid questions about the state of society is eagerly dismissed as "extreme" or "radical." I think russians are intelligent enough to grasp the idea here, and give intelligent feedback on the state of their society without holding back, or going over the top. It's already the case that comments to the President's blog has produced results, and the overall tune of those comments seems to highlight corruption at a local level. If this is noticed, and made public, then it may have a positive result that takes russian society further. Just a note of perspective here. In Britain, the land of my birth, corruption is as widespread, and local councils are the worst. There are 2 reasons why this may not be so readily apparent, being the flat refusal of the mainstream press to tackle the real scale of the problem, and the blind loyalty of the system to itself, protecting those who are corrupt against all comers, especially if the council is of the same political colour as the government, although both main parties are as bad as one another. It's unthinkable in Britain that a Prime Minister would publicly demand a business owner fulfill obligations, where workers are disadvantaged, or treated badly, particularly if the business owner is wealthy, and/or makes a political contribution. This is Britain's "soviet" lifestyle, and it's no less damaging to the country, or it's people. Opening up political discourse to the people is a good idea, a brave idea, and if the powers to be are listening, a successful idea. It's unique, and will change as the format takes shape, and evolves, but it will help shape our modern society.

permalink quote alex stone

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields