How they fixed Russian elections

[Maxim]

It was already reported by many sources like The Times, Economist, Guardian, Independent that recent legislative elections in Russia became a shame - all the dirty tricks like intimidation, fraud, bribery applied by Putin supporters to gain convincing victory.

Here's another catch - a video was prepared by hidden camera at a Moscow city poll station. It shows how they add new ballots to the vote counting machine.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Maxim

[marcinmoka]

a. How do we know it was the tabulation of votes?

b. Would United Russia not have won regardless? Maybe not by the margin they did, but they could've probably forseen a majority regardless.

Granted, for many, especially amongst the idealists in the west, it is a matter of principle. For most Russians, it's a matter of stability.

Edited December 5, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Wilber]

a. How do we know it was the tabulation of votes?

b. Would United Russia not have won regardless? Maybe not by the margin they did, but they could've probably forseen a majority regardless.

Granted, for many, especially amongst the idealists in the west, it is a matter of principle. For most Russians, it's a matter of stability.

I think it is more a matter of power than stability. When you have people who are already sitting and would be elected again not even being able to run because Putin has declared that the party they belong to is not large enough to field candidates, it is purely about the pursuit of power. Putin has decided that he is stability and damn anyone who gets in his way. I think this is just the beginning of him consolidating his power. It looks like Russia's short experiment with real democracy is over and it will be back to the sham democracy it was under the Soviets. Disappointed but not really surprised.

[marcinmoka]

I think it is more a matter of power than stability

Is it?

How does one not just gain, but maintain power without some stability?

it is purely about the pursuit of power.

And to what end? Putin and his KGB/FSB co. hardly seem the type to yearn for power for purely megalomaniacal, selfish ends (though I am not to certain about Ivanov).

Disappointed but not really surprised.

As a Canadian and one with family contacts in the region, I would prefer some form of stability rather than the unabashed highest bidder-take-all kleptocracy in a nation which has both 10,000 + active warheads and is so strategically vital to a relative peace in the world.

Sadly, that kind of view doesn't win me friends on campus.

[Wilber]

Is it?

How does one not just gain, but maintain power without some stability?

If power is not gained and held honestly, stability is an illusion and at best, temporary.

And to what end? Putin and his KGB/FSB co. hardly seem the type to yearn for power for purely megalomaniacal, selfish ends (though I am not to certain about Ivanov).

Their reasons for wanting power may be no different from most politicians, it's the lengths they will go to get it and keep it which are disturbing. I don't think it bodes well for the future of democracy in Russia.

As a Canadian and one with family contacts in the region, I would prefer some form of stability rather than the unabashed highest bidder-take-all kleptocracy in a nation which has both 10,000 + active warheads and is so strategically vital to a relative peace in the world.

So would I but as Canadians you and I don't have to live under such a regime. Same could be said for any other dictatorship that offers a stability that won't disturb our comfortable Canadian lives. You say that Russians want stability. Do you think they are not capable of electing a government that will give them that without the blatant manipulation that went on during this election? If so, I would like to know why.

Sadly, that kind of view doesn't win me friends on campus.

I'm not surprised but at least you are honest about it.

[Lazarus]

I was wondering what Carl Rove had been up to lately. Know I know, he has been teaching the Russians how fuck over a democratic election.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Lazarus

[buffycat]

I was wondering what Carl Rove had been up to lately. Know I know, he has been teaching the Russians how fuck over a democratic election.

LOL

Well at the very least there is an actual PAPER trail to follow in Russia (If I am not mistaken). Unlike the recent two elections in the US.... Black Box Voting

Despite Putins failings, he has done a pretty good job of ridding his land of looters. This bodes well with ordinary people. For interest some of you may want to take a gander at this little doc: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs .

[Maxim]

a. How do we know it was the tabulation of votes?

b. Would United Russia not have won regardless? Maybe not by the margin they did, but they could've probably forseen a majority regardless.

Granted, for many, especially amongst the idealists in the west, it is a matter of principle. For most Russians, it's a matter of stability.

a. It was explained to me by my Russian friends. In fact this video was demonstrated to Mr Churov (chairman of Russian central election committee) during his broadcasted interview after the "elections". He didn't deny that video shows the tabulation of votes. Instead he examined the men uniform and claimed that the video couldn't be cut on the election day, because men worn the uniform of so called Emergency Ministry (M.CH.S.) and they were not invited to the pollstations in Moscow. Ironically, it was commented later that Mr.Churov forgot (or didn't know) that days before the election, Emergency Misistry staff WAS invited to control order on the pollstations and people witnessed them there on the voting day

b. It's the key. It simply demonstrates how Putin and Co are afraid of Russian people. They can't rely on them (like Chavez tried). They can't afford any "mistake" that Russians could vote for non-Putin's party. So masquerading the "democratic voting" is safer for neo-KGB power, than risking their sits in open fight.

You may ask - why do they need all this play with elections then? Simple. To show you and me that they are democratically (legitimatelly) elected government. And I can see that their trick works in many occasions on the West.

'For most Russians, it's a matter of stability' - you say?

I'd say, for SOME Russians a stability matters. But for MOST Russians a stability based on lie matters even more serious thing. It's clear evil with all the consequences out of this conclusion.

[Maxim]

If power is not gained and held honestly, stability is an illusion and at best, temporary.

You read my mind!

So would I but as Canadians you and I don't have to live under such a regime. Same could be said for any other dictatorship that offers a stability that won't disturb our comfortable Canadian lives. You say that Russians want stability. Do you think they are not capable of electing a government that will give them that without the blatant manipulation that went on during this election? If so, I would like to know why.

That's what all Czars, Soviets and neo-KGB thought and think, that Russians are not capable to decide for themselves and elect Russian government which is just for them! And sadly they treat Russians like a livestock. Such "stability" in not better than in a military camp. Such government looks (and behaves) like occupation regime on the conquerred territory called Russia.

[Maxim]

LOL

Well at the very least there is an actual PAPER trail to follow in Russia (If I am not mistaken). Unlike the recent two elections in the US.... Black Box Voting

Despite Putins failings, he has done a pretty good job of ridding his land of looters. This bodes well with ordinary people. For interest some of you may want to take a gander at this little doc: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs .

Putin is a godfather of neo-KGB mafia. This mafia had a war with "Russian" oligarchs for economic power (in fact, not many of them are ethnic Russians, practically none, which explains why truly Russians didn't care much about the fate of the oligarchs). And it succeeded. Now most of oligarchs are controlled by Putin. So the bandit capitalism is settled in Russia for now. Mafia (Putin) rules. Putin himself is pretty ready to be in jail. For his economic crime (started when he chaired foreign trade committee in St.Petergsburg and linked to narco cartels) and for his political crimes, organizing genocide of Russians. If Russians don't hang him themselves one day, the bench in Haage's court is waiting for him.

[Lazarus]

Putin is a godfather of neo-KGB mafia. This mafia had a war with "Russian" oligarchs for economic power (in fact, not many of them are ethnic Russians, practically none, which explains why truly Russians didn't care much about the fate of the oligarchs). And it succeeded. Now most of oligarchs are controlled by Putin. So the bandit capitalism is settled in Russia for now. Mafia (Putin) rules. Putin himself is pretty ready to be in jail. For his economic crime (started when he chaired foreign trade committee in St.Petergsburg and linked to narco cartels) and for his political crimes, organizing genocide of Russians. If Russians don't hang him themselves one day, the bench in Haage's court is waiting for him.

Putin has as much chance of facing the Haage bench as does Bush.....slim to absolutely none.

[marcinmoka]

If power is not gained and held honestly, stability is an illusion and at best, temporary.

Tell this to the Chinese.

Now most of oligarchs are controlled by Putin.

Or nationalized such as with Yukos/Rosneft While I do find the interference, expropriation, and intense vendettas launched against the oligarchs to be disturbing and rather unjust, I also can't deny that they were needed. Had their energy reserves been strictly in private hands, Russia would be pathetically weak. Same goes for UABC, which was in dire need of consolidation to prevent Russia from losing so much military bite.

*I am not saying Putin is the ideal, as he is far from it. But while some of you look to all alternatives as resulting in 'shiny, happy, outcomes were the masses of Russians are singing Kumbaya and roasting kartoshki on an open fire while voting freely (and ironically, masses would still be pro-Putin), I see things from a much more skeptical point of view. I believe things could get worse, SIGNIFICANTLY worse had there been a recreation of the power vacuum in the post- dissolution years. And those outcomes need to be avoided at almost any cost, rather than naively wishing for some imaginary ideal state of things.

[myata]

b. Would United Russia not have won regardless? Maybe not by the margin they did, but they could've probably forseen a majority regardless.

Putin needed a huge win for two reasons:

- possible modification of constition to allow him to stay on;

- justifying his special future status the leader of all and everything after and if he decides to go

[Wilber]

*I am not saying Putin is the ideal, as he is far from it. But while some of you look to all alternatives as resulting in 'shiny, happy, outcomes were the masses of Russians are singing Kumbaya and roasting kartoshki on an open fire while voting freely (and ironically, masses would still be pro-Putin), I see things from a much more skeptical point of view. I believe things could get worse, SIGNIFICANTLY worse had there been a recreation of the power vacuum in the post- dissolution years. And those outcomes need to be avoided at almost any cost, rather than naively wishing for some imaginary ideal state of things.

So your solution is a return to autocracy. I don't think naivety is the issue here. Most people understand that going from being a country that has never known democracy to one that is fully functioning is not always going to be a smooth ride but when do Russians get to have a democratic government or will they always be destined to be governed by autocrats in the name of stability and security?

[marcinmoka]

So your solution is a return to autocracy.

And yours is a Chaotic Kleptocracy such as during the Yeltsin years? Is it genuinely better?

[Wilber]

And yours is a Chaotic Kleptocracy such as during the Yeltsin years? Is it genuinely better?

No it is not but you have to learn to walk before you can run. Maybe Russian can't learn to function as a real democracy, I don't know but expediency is no reason to deny them the opportunity to try. It is easy to play fast and lose with other peoples freedoms.

[marcinmoka]

No it is not but you have to learn to walk before you can run

But what is the point of running if you are only running into the ground.

In continuing your analogy, those 9 years of lessons resulted in more bruises and fractures from the relentless fall-downs, and thus the Russian public's enthusiasm for new methods of making the transition. Russia is not Poland or Hungary, and that is something many foreign observers tend to forget.

Maybe after some real stability is established can they go on an continue with a more legitimate democratic process. Till than, we should just hope for the best.

[MMT]

But what is the point of running if you are only running into the ground.

In continuing your analogy, those 9 years of lessons resulted in more bruises and fractures from the relentless fall-downs, and thus the Russian public's enthusiasm for new methods of making the transition. Russia is not Poland or Hungary, and that is something many foreign observers tend to forget.

Maybe after some real stability is established can they go on an continue with a more legitimate democratic process. Till than, we should just hope for the best.

What kind of stability are you talking about? And why should we admire any kind of stability in Russia but not in other country, let say Belarus? Politically, Belarus is more stable than Russia, but for some reason majority of western governments boycott this stable Belarus, which is neighbor of Russia and even virtually has sort of commonwealth with Russia (long term idea of union of two countries Russia & Belarus).

So why the West treats Lukashenko as dictator, and Putin as democratically elect?

All this comes along with the fact that the international vote watchdog complained that Russia offered to allow only 70 bodies of them for the last weekend elections, while a year ago Belarus invited 400 OSBE observers for their elections! Remember that population of Belarus is 10% of Russian population!

Basically, that's why the OSBE decided to boycott the Russian election.

And again, Belarus got blockade from the West because of failure with democracy (despite of great political and economical stability!) and Russia is gaining full political and economical support despite obvious failure with democracy (perhaps worse than in Belarus!) and less than Belorussian stability?!

Is it all about nukes and oil and gas? If "dictator" Lukashenko (legitimately elected!) had a nuke and a good reservoir of gas, our government would pardon his "dictatorship" and bless strong economic ties with this country?

You said Russia is not Poland or Hungary. Correct. Russia is not Belarus either. But Belarus and Russia are seriously integrated, even talking about building one government, one parliament and getting one president for united country.

So why our governments are so selective in their judgment on picking "good" and "bad" guys?

[leo]

What kind of stability are you talking about? And why should we admire any kind of stability in Russia but not in other country, let say Belarus?...

Is it all about nukes and oil and gas? If "dictator" Lukashenko (legitimately elected!) had a nuke and a good reservoir of gas, our government would pardon his "dictatorship" and bless strong economic ties with this country?...

So why our governments are so selective in their judgment on picking "good" and "bad" guys?

I don't think that number of nukes affects political decision in this case. Let say if Ronald Reagan didn't call them an evil empire and didn't put good pressure on commies quarter a century ago, then I bet mister president Putin would be called comrade general secretary Putin by now.

Soviets had more nukes than Putin's Russia has. And it didn't stop the West with that final effort of the cold war.

But oil and gas matter. What was the gas price at Reagan's time? And what is it now?

If oil price would suddenly drop now (a big "if"!) then it could be very different situation for reincarnated soviet empire (Russia). But we have what we have (high world oil prices). And our governments, hinted by our top business whales, decided that it's better to continue dealing with Putin because he's "our son of a B...". But the article you referred to on another thread ("Russia to the West...") quite logically explains that Putin is not our SOB anymore. So why bother with supporting him, even indirectly?

I think it's a mistake. A big one, IMHO.

[Wilber]

Maybe after some real stability is established can they go on an continue with a more legitimate democratic process. Till than, we should just hope for the best.

For autocrats, that time never arrives. They will always have a reason why it can't happen now but maybe sometime in a future that never comes unless they are forced into it.

[marcinmoka]

I don't think that number of nukes affects political decision in this case. Let say if Ronald Reagan didn't call them an evil empire and didn't put good pressure on commies quarter a century ago, then I bet mister president Putin would be called comrade general secretary Putin by now.

Regan-esque mythology dies hard. Do you honestly believe that a statement by Regan caused the soviet union to implode? The pressure being applied, perhaps did speed up the process, but hostility against the soviet union was in short supply.

And why should we admire any kind of stability in Russia but not in other country, let say Belarus?

Someone else (a Belarussian in fact) asked me this earlier. I think Leo partly answered this, since energy reserves do matter, especially with an up and coming China in their backyard.

Is it all about nukes and oil and gas? If "dictator" Lukashenko (legitimately elected!) had a nuke and a good reservoir of gas, our government would pardon his "dictatorship" and bless strong economic ties with this country?

This is just silly. The fact of the matter is that Belarus does not posses energy, nor a massive weapon stockpile, nor control a strategically vital part of Asia, so why bother posing far fetched scenarios. Granted if said elements did pertain to Belarus (as well as a population 15x it's size, I doubt the outcome would of been any different.)

Edited December 6, 2007 by marcinmoka

[myata]

For autocrats, that time never arrives. They will always have a reason why it can't happen now but maybe sometime in a future that never comes unless they are forced into it.

The way I understand Russia, if the guy at the top really needs somthing, it happens. No matter what law, constitution, etc, etc, says about the issue.

But I doubt that, ultimately, the fault should be attributed entirely to the people at the top. The people themselves need a strong man, and they're getting one whether through democracy or else.

Which speaks to futility of democratisation, liberation, proselitation and such. One cannot translplant their thoughts into other peoples minds. And one society, however advanced, cannot make other people start living by its, rather than their own, laws and traditions. When people will feel the need for real freedom and democracy, they'll have it. It'll be easier for them too, as there's so much positive knowledge around.

I can't but agree with the position an advanced society should take toward the others that Ursula Le Guin put forward in her writings: observe; learn; report; engage in open honest dialog and exchange; never impose; never use force first.