The return of the Putin III

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

[Error: unknown template video]

I think this vid is pretty succinct, how'dya think? Well, the exit polls are unambiguous. There'll be no 2nd round, Putin wins the presidential election in Russia. 58-60% roughly. And no surprise there.

The result was anticipated, and is hardly a shock for anybody. More important is what the opposition's reaction would be and what are Putin's next moves. He'll have to choose between reform or constant protests, repressions and economic stagnation. Whichever way he chooses, he'll have to relinquish absolutist power. Why? Well, let's see why.

First, about the vote. Today the central streets of Moscow and St.Petersburg were blocked by military trucks an thousands of troops. It was like martial law. The opposition is planning to begin protests on Monday, and on Sunday only pro-Putin rallies were allowed. Meanwhile the ministry of internal affairs decided to deploy a small army that could easily overtake a medium-sized city.

The first data from the exit polls showed about 50% turnout, which would be just about enough to conveniently shut the mouths of the critics who were ready to claim that the elections are illegitimate because they don't reflect the will of the people.

There were lots of complaints that no true choice and no real alternative to Putin had been presented. All other 4 candidates were unelectable clowns (see video above) - the commie Zyuganov, the ultra-nationalist Zhirinovski, the former speaker of parliament Mironov and the billionaire Prokhorov (prior post here). Others are convinced that Putin is "Our Father" and the only strong choice, the Savior who has the energy and competence to lead the largest country in the world (and incidentally, the richest in natural resources). "I'll vote for Putin because he's a good president and he'll take care of our children, our future" (literal translation from a Russian ЖЖ-er).

Others are hatin' on his macho image and they despise the system he has created, the one that has made Russia look like... well, Russia. It has always been like that, come to think of it - be it the Romanovs, Stalin, or the Soviet mummies. Seems like the old proverb is true after all: Every Nation Deserves The Leaders It Gets.

So, given the specifics of the Russian constitution (very conveniently shaped btw), Putin could hypothetically reign from his throne in Kremlin until 2024. Unless another change of constitution happens, which would proclaim him emperor. But still, 2024 sounds nice. That'll be a reign almost as long as Stalin's. Congrats, Russia.

This time it didn't go so as easily for Putin as it may look like, though. Initially he underestimated the protests against the rigged parliamentary elections last December. He didn't even try to conceal his condescension when he called the white ribbons that were the symbol of the Fair Elections movement "a bunch of unwrapped condoms". But his election campaign went in a completely different tone - after all, Putin had to be re-elected in order to stop the resurgence of anarchy in the country - that was his main message (as if he was almost saying that his puppy Medvedev had allowed anarchy back into the country; which may make you wonder how come he'll nominate him for prime-minister again - and you can be sure that he will).

But, like Masha Gessen said on Jon Stewart's show last Wednesday (bold lady indeed), there are three pillars upon which Putin's power structure rests: 1) fear, 2) connections, and 3) money. And the fear factor has now been taken out of the equation. Now Putin will have to deal with the winds of change that are sweeping across the Russian cities. Moscow is holding its breath. The police is everywhere. What will happen from here on, might very much depend on how much per cents Putin wins. If he wins a lot, like more than 60-70%, then a radicalisation of the situation is very possible. But if he wins much less, then he could prove prone to concessions in order to ease the tensions.

Putin could respond to the bottom-up push for change in two possible ways. He could either make concessions or he could try to suppress it with force. But either way, he's in a lose-lose situation because either scenario would weaken his power, albeit in a different way. His KGB past, his authoritarian reputation and his increasingly anti-West rhetoric are creating suspicions that he'll choose the hard way. And this would mean further encapsulating of the regime, more repressions against the media, crushing the protests, persecuting the opposition, and flexing geopolitical muscles in Europe and the UN Security Council. And thus Putin's new term could prove a real nightmare.

The new/old president of Russia could choose reform of course - new parliamentary elections, freer media, releasing the political prisoners. But that looks highly unlikely. And either way, all of this would only weaken his grip on power. The harder he tries, the more it'll be slipping away.

All indications are that the end of the authoritarian rule in Russia can be already spotted on the horizon. But what will follow after that... Now, that is a very disturbing question.
 

Comments

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. After all, when Hitler was running for presidency in Germany in 1932 he got 37% and a year later 43% which made him Chancellor. His party NSDAP had just a few thousand members at the time but it didn't prevent them from seizing power in 1933. ;-)

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

I remember Roosevelt was an impressive victory in '32.
In '36 Roosevelt even more stunning victory was in 1940 too.
February 19, 1942 was the construction of concentration camps in the United States for its citizens.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Yes. See? :-)

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

So I am not against punishment of the enemies of the country.
Only in the U.S. and in Germany, this was based on racial grounds.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

That's not my point. My point is that a party or organisation doesn't have to have millions of members in order to have a real impact on elections. It has to be very vocal, well organised, and persistent in the pursuit of its agenda. And it has to have an agenda. And a smart and unscrupulous leader of course.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Whereas Russia's history shows a delightful tolerance of Jews and intellectuals... oh wait, no it doesn't.

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

Yeah? Remind me when it was genocide by nationality in Russia? In what years? And who were subjected to genocide?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Pogroms in the 19th and early 20th centuries, though you will probably argue that they were friendly, mob-based suggestions that millions of Jews move somewhere else instead of just outright murder.

How many died in the gulags? In Stalin's purges?

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

Pogroms in the 19th and early 20th centuries
These pogroms are not sanctioned by the government, is a manifestation of the will of the people, or ordinary robbery. That is, it does not state policy such as genocide of Indians, for example.

How many died in the gulags? In Stalin's purges?
I similar to information desk?
Bring the facts and we discuss them.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Unlike the Soviet and German ones, ours had most of the people survive it. It also was operated as billed whereas Soviet and German concentration camps weren't designed to just concentrate people. They were designed to kill off troublesome people.

And what's with bringing up FDR? America's right wing thinks he's a tyrant but would put him higher than Stalin and retrospectively above Hitler.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Why would America's right wing think FDR was a tyrant?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

His then unprecedented usurping of powers. Including attempts to stack the judiciary and expand executive powers.

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

Yeap.
But ... In the USSR there was no concentration camps. Never.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Oh really? What were those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag), recreational facilities?

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

In the U.S. there no prisons? And in the USSR and in Russia they are.
A gulag - a management organization, which united all the labor camps in a single correctional system. In the labor camps were placed criminals, not people on racial grounds as in the U.S. and in Germany as in England, etc.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

While the camps housed a wide range of convicts, from petty criminals to political prisoners, large numbers were convicted by simplified procedures, such as NKVD troikas and other instruments of extrajudicial punishment. The Gulag is recognized as a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union)

...deportations of "anti-Soviet" categories of population, often classified as "enemies of workers," deportations of entire nationalities, labor force transfer, and organized migrations in opposite directions to fill the ethnically cleansed territories.

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

Ha-ha-ha!
Yes, Wikipedia - a source of trustworthy!*
*sarcasm

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Well, Wiki is really not the ultimate thing, but at least it's a guideline to finding more info on a subject - like, the one that's hidden behind the relevant citations in the footnotes. It's part of doing a research, as opposed to saying "This ain't true, bye" without providing any actual evidence to support your refutal. ;-)

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

So you have to give a link to the source, not on the wiki.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The Soviet Gulag system was in effect no different than concentration camps. It concentrated political dissidents, troublesome ethnic minorities, and those who Stalin felt couldn't be trusted.

Calling them concentration camps, gulags, or boncentration bamps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg). They're all the same.

The gulag system collected "problem" people and made them disappear.

Would it have been better if the Nazis called their prisons "gulags"?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

They'd prolly have called them Unerwünschtepersonenverflüchtigungslagern (UPVLs).

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

A gulag - a management organization, which united all the labor camps in a single correctional system. In the labor camps were placed criminals... not crazy, not dissent, thieves, murderers, arsonists, terrorists and spies.
In the U.S. and German concentration camps put people on ethnic or racial grounds.
See the difference?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I think it was demonstrated to you that the GULag camps hosted political dissidents along with the criminals, and that Stalin deliberately relocated vast numbers of people to cut their connection to their traditional communities and disrupt their ethnic identity, in a massive attempt to re-shape the Soviet society to his liking.

You didn't even bother to make an attempt to refute that. That said, please give me one reason why any of your further "arguments" should be taken seriously.

[pofigistiks.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do not deny, were convicted by accident. It is a fact.
I deny that the gulag - a repressive concentration camp.
This is a prison for criminals. The vast majority were convicted criminals.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Political dissidents were sent to Siberia by accident? HAHAHA!