February 28, 2008
Who is the unfairest of them all?
March will be a bad month for those who prefer their elections free and fair. On March 2nd (this Sunday) we have the Russian presidential election. Then on March 14th it is the Iranian parliamentary elections. And then on March 29th, Zimbabwe is holding joint presidential and parliamentary elections.
So much for the inevitable forward march of democracy.
It’s a bit of a toss up as to which of these three electoral charades will be the most blatantly unfair. But I would say that things will get progressively worse as the month goes on. The Russian election will be bad; the Iranian election will be really bad - and the Zimbabwe polls will be grotesque.Everybody knows that Dmitry Medvedev is going to win the Russian vote handily. Communist and ultra-nationalists candidates have been allowed onto the ballot - perhaps to make the Kremlin’s man look like a mainstream moderate. But there is no candidate to stand for a liberal alternative. And Russian media coverage of Mr Medvedev is fawning. Predictably foreign observers are not happy - and equally predictably their objections are being dismissed by the Russian authorities.
Liberals and reformists aren’t doing too well in Iran either. More than 2,400 candidates have been kept off the ballot on overtly ideological grounds. Iran has had the reputation as one of the most democratic countries in the region - which says more about the region than Iran.
Zimbabwe will round the month off. And I think it is a fair bet that Robert Mugabe will outdo all his undemocratic rivals for brazenness and brutality. To warm up for a month of electioneering, the Zimbabwean police have just issued a thinly veiled threat to shoot opposition demonstrators.
And in case you think that Zimbabwe will represent the last word in rigged votes - just wait for the Burmese junta’s referendum on its new constitution - scheduled for May.
I suspect the Russians would elect Mr. Medvedev even if the rabble who brought down Russia to her knees in the Yeltsin era were allowed a sporting chance. What have these media-friendly, so-called democrats, done but to acquiesce and assist in the looting and humiliation of the Russian?
As for Iran, the constitution gives so much of the power to the unelected and semi-elected institutions that the parliament and the president are relatively powerless. I think the way the authorities still feel they should meddle in the process is a demonstration of their weakness (and fear of the populous) not because of their strength.
Nevertheless, as you say, Iran is a lot more pluralistic than most of the region. It is a sad commentary about the region but let’s not forget that the sanctimonious Westerners (US-UK-France, in particular) who beat their chests for HR and democracy, are never too slow in supporting the worst examples of backwardness and dictatorship in the region (from the House of Saud to Hosni Mobarak).
Could Iran’s political climate improve? Yes.
Would interference by foreigners help? Certainly not.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentYou forgot to mention the ongoing Democratic Party primaries, also in march. With their arcane rules and “superdelegate” supermagic, they fit well with the the egregious third-world examples you have mentioned.
Why do I care? I don’t.
Posted by: RCS | February 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Report this commentRCS, you’re being silly. If the Democratic Party primaries were meaningless, then Barack Obama would not have been able to mount what will probably be a successful campaign against the Clinton political machine - one of the best on the planet. Hillary Clinton was long regarded as the inevitable nominee of the Democratic Party. And, yet, on this coming Tuesday, she is very possibly going to witness nails hammered into the coffin containing her Presidential ambitions.
The Democratic Party primary rules are difficult and abstruse, but not insurmountable. Ultimately, the voters will make the decision concerning the nominee. (The superdelegates will essentially be forced to go with the candidate winning the most elected delegates.) And it looks like it’s going to be a black man. That’s something the world thought impossible 6 months ago. All this speaks well of the American political process.
Posted by: Tory Torrison | February 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am | Report this commentLets not get carried away by praising the American political process just because a black man is contending to be president. That country is still a racist ex-aparteid state (can only be classified as a true democracy since the mid 60’s), run de-facto by the zionist lobby and their leaders in industry and media who already have succeeded in infected Obama’s political campaign and will undoubtedly sway him their way should his inexperience be tested by another foreign policy “event” like 9/11. Sound familiar? The Russians and Iranians know full well that the US will not stop their antagonism in both of their cases so they would be fools not to take a hardline stance. I fear that our Orwellian nighmare of the last 8 years is only going to get worse. The pawns and knights have been played. The game is getting significantly more complicated and risky now
Posted by: Reza | February 29th, 2008 at 3:12 am | Report this commentBTW,
Posted by: Reza | February 29th, 2008 at 3:17 am | Report this commentWill this foreign affairs blog ever debate the genocide taking place in GAza. 40 people were murdered today by Israel including a baby and 4 kids playing footie on an open pitch. Were they terrorists too?
Pacifist,
“Could Iran’s political climate improve? Yes.
Would interference by foreigners help? Certainly not.” Maybe not under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. I read an interesting piece recently, based on Kissinger’s doctorate, comparing a US / Iran deal to the Congress of Vienna, which brought more or less 100 years of peace to Europe. The key point here is that republican France, which had tried and failed to export its revolution by force, had just been defeated on the battlefield and so was in a position to bargain.
Aside from that, I see that Khamenei endorsed Ahmagonnanukeya’s hard line stance this week. The elections will mean nothing, except to reinfornce the regime’s stance. A bad situation for us all. “Interference by foreigners” may be unavoidable.
Reza, your use of the word genocide is contemptible. Darfur - 300,000 people massacred by Arab militias - is genocide. Rwanda was genocide. Anything to say about the repression in Zimbabwe, where thousands are dying of hunger, disease and at the hands of Mugabe’s police state? What once once described as the breadbasket of Africa, is now a virtual wasteland. And yet you, and all the other supporters of “human rights” don’t care. Put that on the agenda for Durban II.
Posted by: AYC | February 29th, 2008 at 9:59 am | Report this commentFor most Russians, it would appear that the popular electoral process is an annoying inconvenience. Nevermind that it was a reaonably fair election that made an unlikely Putin Caesar eight years ago. Most momories of the democratic experience are deemed best forgotten.
In the US where 300 million people intensely ponder three tabloid candidates for their Caesar the Exceptionalists and their lobbies must be somewhat in envy of Putin’s Russia. If an Obama win truly does render emboldened and creative policy making, look for political-risk controls to follow his first policy failure. Prepare for the age of Safe Blogging.
The topic is unfairness, thus Hamas’ victory in Palestine is not on the table. It is, as acknowledged, questionable as to why Iran merits placement on this short list (where it is implicitly grouped with Zimbabwe). Pakistan only a few weeks ago was deservedly high on the unfairness list; today the verdict is out as to whether fair results there are really what was desired in Washington.
France may offer a better contemporary example of how fair results deliver tyrants and losers and yet publics have a chance to quickly rethink them. Watch France’s municipal elections in a few weeks to see how voters check our exuberant president’s recent flirtations with/emulation of Tom Cruise and government by Scientology. This now hugely unpopular manchild swept into office only nine months ago.
Posted by: WCM | February 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am | Report this commentP: “…even if the rabble who brought down Russia to her knees in the Yeltsin era were allowed a sporting chance… What have these media-friendly, so-called democrats, done but to acquiesce and assist in the looting and humiliation of the Russian?”
P, even after numerous sparrings with Iran opponents on this blog who might often be as ill-informed as prejudiced, you evidently have not learnt the lesson: don’t repeat others’ platitudes if you have no first-hand expertise in the area. It’s sickening enough to listen to the silly rubbish about Russia going down /up to/from its knees on all state TV channels and at official election rallys. What do you know about the 90-s in Russia? Who were the ’so-called democratic’ rabble, given that most of the current leaders made their ascent in the 90-s? You’d do better to stick to defending Iranian democracy which you seem to be more knowledgeable about. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is not the best principle when trying to understand other countries.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am | Report this commentHi Russian,
Perhaps you care to educate me on some of the points:
- Are things better now in Russia or 8 years ago?
- Did the giving away of Russia’s national assets take place under the noses of the so-called democrats, or not?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am | Report this commentRussian,
Out of curiosity, do you find the silly rubbish about Russia that you read in the western press all the time any less sickening than the stuff they show on the 1st channel?
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am | Report this commentAlways happy to educate, P, it’s never too late to learn. However, don’t be simplistic. What do you mean by “better”? Mean wages and GDP have grown, but so have oil prices - and much higher. Annual GDP growth in Russia (6.7%) is among the lowest in the post-Soviet countries (6-11%). Sovereign debt has shrunk but corporate debts have rocketed beyond USD 350 bn. While wages have grown around fourfold over 8 years, property prices have gone up by 8-10 times and housing became less accessible for the majority. National defense has suffered greatly, the military is plainly falling apart. Penitentiary system is legalised torture, on a par with Iranian prisons I’m sure. COurts are domesticated, judicial system is corrupt all throughout and less than a third of the population has trust in it. Infrastrucure is falling apart: there are fewer km of new roads built in the country every year than of old roads becoming unusable, and city supply networks are 70% worne-off. Nothing has been done in the past 8 yeasr to remedy this.
As to your 2nd point, yes it did, but the scale was incomparably lower (in late 90-s one of the “so-called democrats” vice-premier Chubais was fired from the government for a suspicion of an illegal USD 90.000 deal; BTW, he’s been chief of the Russian power monopoly under Putin). There was also more competition, albeit very primitive, and enough press freedom to report on those murky deals. Since 2000 national assets continued to be looted and given away, however on a scale of billions, not millions (read Stanislav Belkovsky’s interview to the Gurdian in December).
Dmitry, I do not read western press about Russia. However, I do read www.ej.ru and listen to Echo Moskvi, for example. Nothing sickening there. Do you prefer ORT and RTR? Out of curiosity.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentReza,
You fail to mention Gaza’s gratuitous artillery rocket barrage of the Israeli town of Sderot, now also extended to the city of Ashqelon (pop. 110,000).
Would you be willing to live in any of these places? If you were, would you view it as your Government’s responsibility to guarantee you and your family’s life and security? At what point would you deem it necessary to re-conquer the neighbouring territory, whose leadership seems motivated solely by their envy and their hatred, and their wish to see you, your family, your city and your country destroyed — all for not being Muslim?
Posted by: RCS | February 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am | Report this commentDear Russian,
Thank you for the interesting facts and figures, which I am sure are entirely reliable.
Now tell me:-
1-) Why is Putin as popular as the Western press say he is?
2-) If there were free and fair elections with everyone allowed decent access to the the media, who would win?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am | Report this commentRussian,
I live outside Russia presently, hence read prodominantly western press and don’t watch either of those. As far as your sources are concerned - whilst I do listen to Echo some times myself when I’m in Russia, your internet resource (without really looking into it) appears just about as bad as RTR and ORT - the only crucial difference is their objectives (and hence ideological position) - they are merely anti-Kremlin (somehow it very often gets confused with “objective” and “unbiased”). Pointing to obvious drawbacks and shortcomings is a good and easy strategy - you appear inherently right about other questions as well.
Also the points you make in your first paragraph are quite amusing really - it almost makes you think that Putin’s regime has run down a strong country in tip-top condition
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am | Report this commentP, the figures must be reliable as most of them come from the state statistical sources and are regularly reported in the Russian press. The only unofficial figure is the number of km of new roads built - it has appeared in a recently published independent report by Milov and Nemtsov. The report, BTW, contains a lot of interesting facts of national assets disappearing in the past 8 years…
1. Putin is popular because less than half of Russians (I suspect, closer to 30%) regularly use internet. On the contrary, over 90% take all their information from TV. And there is no independent TV channel in Russia since 2003. Daily brainwashing is a powerful weapon. You must know.
2. Free and fair access to the media for how long? For a month? Than Medvedev would probably win anyway. For a year? Nobody can tell as this would be a different country then, as it was in the 90-s.
Mind you, even the much free press-friendlier US have elected and re-elected Bush. Voters are notorisouly silly and short-sighted all over the world. However, when their natural silliness is reinforced with imposed lack of choice they have to make, they cease to become a society and turn into a mere conglomeration of households.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Report this commentSo, Dear Russian…Russia was motoring along quite nicely until that nasty Mr. Putin and his henchmen came and screwed things up? Which of the current groupings,would you say, would have done a better job?
Thanks.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm | Report this commentDmitry, you can actually listen to Echo Moskvi and even watch their sister TV channel RTVi over the net now. No need to come back to Russia.
The sources I’ve referred you to are not just anti-Kremlin. They are pro-development. While an Iranian may not know what is happening in Russia, it’s inexcusbale for a Russian national, even living abroad, to say any anti-Kremlin source is as bad as Kremlin propaganda. Read Yulia Latinina, Vladimir Milov (http://www.milov.info/files/broshura_end.pdf), Stanislav Belkovsky(http://www.apn.ru/publications/article19239.htm), read www.newtimes.ru, read www.compromat.ru for God’s sake! Living away from Russia is not an excuse for becoming ignorant about your country. Or have you frozen back in the 90-s when you’ve left it?
Of course everyone is biased! Of course nobody is better than anybody. However, this is called pluralism of opinions and free speech. You must know if you live outside Russia. However, if the Moldovan journalist Natalia Morar writes an article for the New Times accusing Kremlin of rigging the elections through a black purse and is then barred entry into the country without any explanation (she’s been living in Domodedovo for 3 days by now), it’s not a free discussion.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm | Report this commentYou seem to have overlooked the Malaysian election set for March 8th! It might interest you to note that the Main Stream Media are owned or controlled by the ruling coalition; gerrymendering has been developed to a fine art (largest constituency approximating 100,000 and the smallest under10,000); the electoral rolls have some 8000 voters aged 120 plus years; and no open air rallies are permitted, unless you wish to be tear gassed or be subjected to water cannoning! Fair and free elections? You bet they are from the perspective of a corrupt elite that has held power for 50 years!
Posted by: R.Chander | February 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentP, which of the current groupings do you know? There are about 15 only in the Kremlin. If you want a detailed discussion, I can give you names of politicians whom I trust more than others, but they will say nothing to you.
Russia was rumbling along neither particularly nicely nor particularly badly in the 90-s. One could hardly expect anything better in a country run-down after 30 years of senile communist leaders, and in such a drastic transition from common ownership to private property. China was wiser to phase it in over decades. So corruption was inevitable given the scale of changes, and poverty was inevitable given the oil prices in their teens.
However, my point is - it did not need to go on like this, let alone become worse, after 2000! It could actually become much better, with courts becoming really independent, privatised industry becoming competetive, infrastrure being pumped with investments, corruption being gradually eradicated, press staying free and politics staying politics, not state-TV showbiz. It did not. What do we have by 2008? USD 400 nm of foreign currency reserves, USD 350 of corporate debts, USD 500 of average wages and a major, MAJOR crisis looming in case of oil prices getting back to the 1999 level. The country has no resilience, no safety reserves left - and they call it “getting back from the knees”!
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentRussian,
I go there quite often and I left not so long ago, so trust me I’m well (better than most) aware of what’s happening.
Your insistance that your sources (especially the last one, come on!) are better than ORT looks a bit naive to be honest, whilst your claim those people are “pro-development” is plain ridiculous. Please re-read my sentence about their strategy. I’m not saying they are wrong, I’m just aking not to take EVERYTHING they say at face value and think about why they say it.
How can you claim there is no explanation if you’ve just provided it one sentence before?
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Report this commentHi Russian,
Indeed, what you say makes sense. It is basically the plea for good governance that most people outside the democratic West (and many people inside it) would make.
But, frequently, these things are easier said than done. What you need is not just a good programme, but capable people who have the brains and energy to carry it out and also the ability to obtain a popular mandate.
So, which groups and individuals would have been able to meet the above criteria but were stopped by Putin and Co.? Don’t worry if I have not heard of them. I can always check them out on Google, Wikipedia and similar.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Report this commentRussian,
I did not say it at first, but I’ve got a good tip for you: please refrain from commenting on the issues that you do not fully understand (e.g. current macro-environment in russia).
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Report this commentAgain, I’m not saying we are tip top, but merely asking you not to judge about things you are not an expert in.
Remember Mark Twain’s famous quote about keeping your mouth closed and removing all doubt
Dmitry, what do you mean by “your last source” - www.compromat.ru ? It’s just a site which publishes artciles from many otehr sources. Unlike ORT. Anything is better than ORT. What did you like watching on it when you lived here, “Big Laundry” with Malakhov? No wonder then that you find any other sources unreliable.
One of us is definitely naive. The difference is that I give facts and figures and refer you to reports and studies, and you say nothing but generalities like “plain reidiculous”, “naive”, “as bad”, “merely anti-Kremlin” etc. What’s the point of discussion if you avoid any concrete arguments? I do not take EVERYTHING (who told you I did?) at face value. However, when Milov in his report says that 6.5% of Gazprom shares have disappeared off the register since 2006, I would like to listen to the explanation. Gazprom did not provide one, neither did ORT - actually, tehy did not even mention the fact, as if it did not happen!
You are very vague and general in responses, please be more specific.
I understand your patriotic feelings because I share them. Somerset Maugham once said that Russians criticise themselves harshly but hate when other nations criticise them. However, patriotism is very badly served if you protect any bad status quo just because otehrs say it’s bad. Pro-development is not ridiculous when I hear anout it from journalists and politicins whom I trust. Milov did not enrich himself in the 90-s when he was deputy enery minister, why should I suspect him of hidden agenda now when he risks his safety as an opposition politician?
Out of curiosity - why did you leave such a nice country? Heard an inner call, like Peace Corps volunteers?
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentApparently our discussion is going the usual Russian way - “shut up you fool”. Let me just say again that I would gladly admit your supremacy in macro-economic issues had you at least once demonstrated it to me here. I may be wrong but I have not heard a single argument back from you. Time to show your brilliant expert argumentative skills.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm | Report this commentRussian,
I did not really leave it - I do not hold another passport, I’m just working outside Russia.
Well if you wanted an argument - what is the problem with having 350bn of corporate debt? do you think that we were better off having none?
Getting back to our discussion on sources/news etc. You wanted me to be specific, what would you say about that?
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.compromat.ru/main/belkovskij/a.htm
P, if you want to know who - in my humble opinion - would’ve done it better in 1996 (when the first elections were rigged by the so-called Yeltsin family clan) or 2000, I think it would be Yegor Gaidar, Anatoly Chubais, Evgueni Yasin… BTW, the first two are still widely hated by the Russians for very harsh shock reforms which they introduced in the 90-s.
However, since then a whole new generation of politicians and, more importantly, economic experts have grown up, and the names would be different now. To me much more promising now are Vladimir Ryzhkov, Vladimir Milov, Garry Kasparov, Andrey Illarionov, Mikhail Delyagin. Theere are otehrs but I hope that for the momenbt it will suffice for you google-searching.
Mind you, there are still “liberals” in the government (e.g. finance minister Kudrin or ex-Economic Dev. Minister German Gref, or again Anatoly Chubais) but they have had no freedom of action. Might call them collaborationists.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Report this commentThanks Russian,
Geidar, Chubais and Ryzhkov, I knew from before. The hatred you mention is quite understandable about the first two. Ryzhkov is interviewed in English quite a lot as a representative of the opposition.
I assume Kasparov is the chess player. Is he an economic expert too?
I shall look up the rest.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Report this commentDmitry, as any aconomist will tell you, 350 bn in corporate debt, incurred mostly by state-owned businesses, is bad because it’s secured with state money. In case of Russia it’s the CB’s reserves and the investment fund, just over 400 bn at current value. If companies like Rosneft cannot pay tehir debts (and Rosneft is the single biggest debtor after its acquisition of YUKOS), the state will have to bail them out with this money (just like NOrthern Rock in the UK or probably in the future Funnie Mae in the US). At the same time, these reserves have been stashed away for the time when Russian budget will become deficit-ridden (from 2009-2010, according to the government) and/or oil prices will drop. Therefore, the choice will be - either to squander this money on inefficient debt-ridden state companies which have incurred losses because of bad management and corruption, or to let them go bankrupt. Either way - disastrous.
Your argumentative skills are really not up to Mark Twain’s mark. I refer you to Belkovsky’s positions regarding the current policy (read his “Itogi s Vladmimirob Putinim. Rossijskajya armia”), and you hit back with a biography of Belkovsky himself. What does the personality of the messanger have to do with the message, if the message is credible? Unlike you, Belkovsky is very exact in his accusations and questions. Try to find similar bio notes about Milov, Delyagin and Latinina if you see no other way of dowing away with their arguments.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Report this commentRussian,
Without dragging you into a long (and futile) ideological discussion , how do you think can someone from the National Security Advisory Council of the US be a promising leader of russia?
http://216.105.98.164/modules/newsmanager/inside%20the%20ctr%20images%20pdfs/AnnualReport2006.pdf#page=23
Posted by: Dmitry | February 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this comment(page 27, left row, 6th from bottom)
It seems the only fair election in Zimbabwe is the one that Mugabe actually loses, anything else even endorsed by God as free and fair will not hold particularly with Westerners. This sought of prejudice is the reason why Zimbabwe’s lines of credit have dried up hence the astronomical rate of inflation. The usual excuse is that because Mugabe stole an election when we all know that its about white farmers losing farms through the redistribution programme.
Posted by: Zim Zimbo | February 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentP, Kasparov has quit chess several years ago and turned to politics. Why, should every politician have an economic background? Does Ahmadinedjad hold an MBA? Vaclav Havel was a fine president being a writer. A good president will form a good team of experts in every field. Its the general vision and principles which count for them. Kasparov would not be my pick for a president though, but Ryzhkov could well be.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Report this commentDmitry, can you cite me any article of the Russian election law which actually forbids smb on the National Security Advisory Council to run for, say, Presidency? If not, than it is legal. However, that would be an interesting information to reveal to the voters during the election campaign in whcih Kasparov could take part. If the majority of the voters would then decide that it’s safe to elect him, let it be so. If not, they would not elect him. However, Kasparov was not allowed to run not because he is on NSAC, but because he could not rent premises for the meeting which would register him as a candidate.
Personally I cannot see any immediate problems with his NSAC membership. Has he been paid for this? Has he betrayed Russian interets in anyway? Then it should be proved. Otherwise, the more ties between countries, the better. You’ve lived behind iron curtain too much. Strange that living abroad now does not chnage your bunker mentality.
It’s second time you are talking personalities instead of talking issues. I’m still waiting for a glimpse of your “marco-environment” wisdom.
Posted by: Russian | February 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm | Report this comment