Absolutely great stuff, Czar Thumper, has that great ring about it! I am telling you this man on the international scene Davos, G20 - no summit would be the same without him, forget shoe banging on the table, it would be all out full contact – he would floor Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron and then move on to getting friendly with the ladies. This guy brings everything to politics, a real star – and yes go ahead, you know exactly where to put that nuclear waste!

Zhirinovsky surely is the third strong candidate, as I’ve heard good portion of the youth supports him. But I gave a thought of the Putin´s view on presidential mandate. And it is not because I would like to see him as the Russian strong leader re-elected again - personally that is, but if one observes it from different possible angles it makes perfect sense a strong leader with impeccable record of promises and deeds delivered to be re-elected until the time he starts to fail. Otherwise it looks like the democracy itself prevents the most capable and therefore forces be replaced with obviously less capable and promising leader. Putin gave example to what happened with the Italian S Berlusconi pointing “…I don’t see any capable/skilled leader at the moment who can replace him.” And exactly the same thing has been done with the Greek’s G Papandreou.

  Do not need a revolution to have a Czars. US has Czars appointed here there and here and there all over the place.   The US Czar  on the war on Druges , a US Czar on  Education, etc.  etc.  etc.  etc. 
 Russia should apoint Czars too; more natural for Russia to do that than the US. A presidental appointment  and supervision; sounds good!  Putin will do that , appoint the Czars  to do the work and take it easy supervise  them from a easy chair. He is over worked as is and no need to over do it when elected President .  

"The State Duma must form the government and, like in all European countries, the leader of the parliamentary majority"

But, dear Vladimir Volfovich, wasn't that the organization of the USSR? Where "the Soviets" was basically Russian word for the foreign name Parliament? The representative democracy?

The problem with such approach -- the regular voters would be having even less ability to control the top power and having less ability to change things. American type of democracy (which is currently used in Russia as well), at least, allows to control the "Head" and "replace it", if the country shows signs of stagnation or going off-course... Even though, I think, at the end of the day, the American President is also "appointed" (by the ruling elite). Only they use more deceiving and masquerading tactics (e.g. not giving any choice, but only the "pre-approved" and "appointed" candidates), so, on the surface, it looks like the regular Americans matter...

We know how the Politburo of the Soviet Communist Party, practically, hijacked the power and rotated it among its members -- "appointing the chairman of the government". What make us think, that this New Parliament wouldn't do similar things?

In fact, even with the current system, the 6-year-long presidential term is too long. I think, 4 years for Russia would be short. So, I am for 5 years. This is historically proven "magical" number for the Russian political and economical clock...

CountCash: "no summit would be the same without him, forget shoe banging on the table, it would be all out full contact -- he would floor Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron and then move on to getting friendly with the ladies"

That is funny, and you are right -- this is how Zhirinovsky represents himself today in the politics. Though, I view him as very smart politician (he is half-Jewish, the best genetic combination, so he suppose to be smart, right? :-)). And I am sure, if he got chance to get the top position in the country, then it is quite possibly we might see the different side of him...

Majority regular Russians love him, but, he has no chances to become a leader of the country. He probably, knows that as well. Therefore, he is not afraid to say, what many others hiding in their heads...

falling apart again.

Korz53 wrote in #3

  Do not need a revolution to have a Czars. US has Czars appointed here there and here and there all over the place.   The US Czar  on the war on Druges , a US Czar on  Education, etc.  etc.  etc.  etc. 

A US Czar does not have the same meaning as a Russian one would.  

So Vladimir Zhirinovsky is half Jewish but I like him though and appreciate and Laugh  at some of his comments but Seriously I wouldn't want him as a Russian Czar or president however I wouldn't mind having as a Court Jester in the Royal Palace.

Zhirinovsky? He is the Russian version of some embarrassing U.S politicians such as Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin.

Gimme 1 billions times Putin or Zyuganov any time. At least they show real concern for Russia and the average Russian.

America wants Putin to be president. And he will.

If it is a Republic, it cannot be ruled by Czars....

@Bogdanov
You were going along with a good post, and then you said " Even though, I think, at the end of the day, the American President is also "appointed" (by the ruling elite). Only they use more deceiving and masquerading tactics (e.g. not giving any choice, but only the "pre-approved" and "appointed" candidates), so, on the surface, it looks like the regular Americans matter..."

Now you should know thet the American Presidential election is a long drawn out process for the non encumbent. The encumbent President, if he has served only one term, is the sitting President. If not his party goes through the same process as the non encumbent. Now, what is that process? Campaigning from state to state with voting by the people to choose the parties candidates. A lenghtly process.is involved, with voting state by state. Now there is no way the winner can be appointed. You have been in the USA for , what, maybe 20 years, and if you paid attention, you know the process. No one will claim the process is perfect, but "appointrd", no.
Now, you may be able to argue that once elected, the President comes under control of a "ruling elite". Maybe try that next time. It can make more sense.

"democratic monarchies"? What is this?  It is like saying "sunny night". Country can be either democracy or monarchy. It cannot be both. By the definition of the word "democracy". If somebody calls a country like this -- this is just political spaghetti on the ears of citizens to fool them and keep them quiet and bent... Advances in development is one thing. I can believe that monarchies can do well under certain conditions. Because, this is essentially autocratic system and it can be pretty effective for certain tasks during some short period of time (depending on the leaders). But, advances in political and social development? Monarchy, again, by definition, is a rigid system with the "frozen" social hierarchies. What kind of development can be there? "Enhancement" of those hierarchies? Like making 20% of those who are holding 80% of a country wealth being even richer? Or to break those hierarchies? Plus, monarchies make sense only in the nationally coherent countries (like some Northern European or Asian). But, apply them in Russia or in the US and you will see what happens...

PR1oh1, I have been living in the US for 10 years... When I said appointed, I included that word in quotes to emphasize that this is metaphor and not literally done. Yes, all in all, the American system makes a good attempt to conduct fair and democratic elections. But, at the end, everything is determined by the amount of money every candidate has. Very good (capable and honest) politician whom people believe and think he would do good job, may drop the race, if he/she runs out of money. But, a mediocre representative ("appointed") of the corporate or political elite may find way to the top, even though, he/she might be not ready for that job. American electoral machine is really state of the art thing and it uses the latests advances in sociology to manipulate masses and achieve their goals. This is what I meant. It is not the system itself designed badly. Actually, it is democratic and, probably, the most advanced in the world in that regard. But, it has flaws and it is misused by certain category of Americans for their own benefits -- to hold the power as long as possible. And they do it successfully. You know that in America there are "ruling dynasties" which just follow one another... This problem is impossible to fix, though. But, for that you need regular Americans being politically knowledgable, active, and having ability to separate propaganda and facts. But, this is exactly what ruling elite is focusing on -- on keeping the general public being misinformed and taken advantage of that...

@Bogdanov
Thanks for clarifying. Good post and I agree with you.

.

God's Anointed Orthodox Autocratic Tsar appoints all government officials based on their loyalty to the ideals of God's Tsar and Holy Mother Russia and their ability to do the job.

.

BitterTruth posted: " So Vladimir Zhirinovsky is half Jewish but I like him though and appreciate and Laugh at some of his comments but Seriously I wouldn't want him as a Russian Czar or president however I wouldn't mind having as a Court Jester in the Royal Palace. " _________________________________________________

Big Z's jew father is hopefully a ruse... but he does make an excellent court jester. Big Z's ultra-nationalism diverted the West's attention while God's Anointed Orthodox Autocratic Tsar took total control. :)