Retired world chess champion Garry Kasparov claims Russia's political opposition will not unite to challenge the Kremlin during the next round of parliamentary and presidential elections.
If Kasparov is correct, any meaningful liberal opposition to the Kremlin may completely disappear from Russia's political landscape.
In an interview with the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Kasparov - head of the newly established "United Civil Front" - contends it is not politics and personalities that keep political opposition from uniting, but rather those liberals willing to cooperate with the current ruling elite.
Kasparov also said that that the political spectrum of left and right is not in play in Russian politics. Rather, the most important dividing line is those willing to confront and oppose what he calls Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime.
"Our Front believes that a coalition can be formed only if we refuse to hold any talks with the regime," Kasparov said. He added, "This is why we believe that we will unite many more people on the right and left wings."
Russia's two major liberal opposition parties, Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, are divided on the issue of cooperating with the Kremlin as a loyal opposition.
Both parties failed to garner enough votes in the 2003 parliamentary elections to win seats in the current legislature. With the vote threshold to be increased to win a seat in the 2007 parliamentary, small political parties will again face defeat.
Russia's liberals are aware of the political math that confronts them. "The Committee 2008," formed shortly after Russia's liberals suffered a devastating defeat in 2003, brought together virtually all of Russia's liberals.
However, the committee appears to only find agreement on the issue of continuing a liberal agenda. How to attract voters, confront the Kremlin, and win elections are issues the liberals fail to find common ground.
It is quite possible Kasparov is not interested in finding common ground with other liberals. In the interview Kasparov may have already accepted that liberals cannot win power through the ballot box, suggesting only social pressure will change Russia's political order.
The power of social pressure has already been demonstrated this year. When some Soviet era social benefits were indexed into cash payments, tens of thousands protesters took to the streets across Russia. The government later admitted that these reforms were poorly implemented and quickly increased cash payments.
Kasparov believes this may happen again. Committed to reforming Soviet era social benefits, including reform of the housing and utility services, the Kremlin has made it clear it will not be deterred and will proceed with both later this year.
The potential of more protests against reforms and the possibility, as Kasparov put it, of constitutional changes to entrench the current regime "the constitutional political process may cross over into the social process." Kasparov added, "Putin's regime must be dismantled, and this is the aim of the United Civil Front."
Kasparov's political calculus is a major departure from Russia's other liberals - and potentially dangerous. He not only is drawing very sharp lines separating him from Russia's other liberals, but also showing little faith in the democratic process. Add to this, his apparent hope for an uprising against the Kremlin akin to a "velvet revolution."
Kasparov may be correct the Kremlin's social reforms may again bring people into the streets. However, it not entirely clear social protests will demand "regime change."
If the street protests earlier this year is any guide to what can happen, the Kremlin will again cave in and shell out more compensation. Major protests during Putin's presidency have largely been confined to economic issues, with political demands rarely voiced.
Kasparov may be over-estimating the appeal of liberalism if social protests do indeed occur. Russia's radical nationalists may benefit far more than any of Russia's liberals. Political activism is on the rise in Russia and it decidedly to the right.
While claiming to support a liberal agenda - even through radical means, Kasparov is indirectly helping the Kremlin maintain the status quo. There are many "statist liberals" within the Kremlin and the Kremlin's parliamentary vehicle United Russia. It is liberal economic reforms that are controversial -- many people want less liberalism, not more it.
Kasparov appears to want to abandon his fellow liberals with the hope the average Russian will soon rise up against Putin - a president whose public ratings are the envy of Western leaders. Kasparov apparently believes there is a popular demand for a liberal agenda.
Indeed, there are political and social frustrations among many Russians, but liberalism's reputation among Russians remains tainted after the radical liberal reforms of the 1990s.
Kasparov's fighting words are very popular among Western audiences. In Russia, many interpret his words as coming from the lunatic fringe. This apparently suits the Kremlin just fine. Kasparov indirectly promotes the Kremlin's form of statist-liberalism.
As for the rest of Russia liberals, not only do they continue to deal with the problematic legacy of liberalism during the first decade of post-communist rule, now they have to deal with a politician who divides them more than the Kremlin ever could.
#1
"Kasparov also said that that the political spectrum of left and right is not in play in Russian politics. Rather, the most important dividing line is those willing to confront and oppose what he calls Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime"
Careful, careful - a lot of folks have disappeared for noticing things like this...
#2
Methinks he will soon come to regret trading chess for modern Russian politics. These are two very different games with one being a full contact blood sport.
Both fearful and resentful of the United States playing the role of the world's "sole superpower," many have expressed the hope the European Union will become a countervailing democratic superpower.
Not only could such an EU curb what are seen as U.S. unilateralism and militarism, it could also spread the sort of peaceful conflict resolution now prevailing in most of Europe to other parts of the world.
Surely this would be better, the advocates of the EU as a countervailing superpower argue, than the Bush administration's "cowboy" approach that has made a mess in Iraq and threatens to make others in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere.
But the EU, others have pointed out, operates under several constraints that serve to prevent it from becoming a superpower. One is the need to coordinate foreign policy among 25 member states -- something that will not become any easier now that French and Dutch voters have rejected the EU constitution that had provided for a common foreign minister.
Another is Europe's low defense expenditure, compared to the United States, has resulted in it having a limited capacity for military intervention, especially without U.S. assistance.
And perhaps most importantly, there appears to be no political will in the EU to build up its armed forces since the resources for this would have to come at least in part through reducing Europe's highly generous (and popular) social welfare and retirement programs.
It may seem impossible, then, for an EU unwilling to engage in military intervention to become a superpower equal to the United States. But this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, it is possible the EU, despite its unwillingness to use force, could not only equal the United States as a superpower, but even replace it as the hegemonic power most able to shape the international order.
The EU has the potential for doing this because it has an asset neither the United States nor any other country (or group of countries) possesses: the desire on the part of other countries to join it.
We have seen already how much the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have been willing to transform themselves in order to be admitted to the EU. If the EU expressed its willingness to admit any and all countries wishing to join that meet its admission standards, it would unleash an extraordinary demand for political and economic reform throughout the world.
While not all countries would want to join the EU, enough probably would in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to create the world's largest voluntary union (which might be renamed the Global Union, or GU). The larger this union grows, the more that other countries, including the United States, would have to take its wishes into account.
Being willing to admit any and all countries wishing to join that meet its political and economic standards for admission, of course, would be an extraordinary commitment for the EU to undertake. Indeed, many Europeans would oppose such an ambitious project.
There is already tremendous opposition in Europe to admitting poorer neighboring countries such as Turkey and Ukraine into the EU.
Indeed, it is ironic that in France, the country where the desire for the EU to become a countervailing superpower to the United States is strongest, the willingness to expand the EU any further is weakest.
It is not sufficient to want to be a superpower in order for a country (or group of countries) to become one. Up to now, military strength has been one of the most important elements that have allowed a country to play this role. The EU is unique in that it has the possibility to play the role of a superpower without asserting itself militarily.
In order to do this, however, the EU must be willing to assert itself politically through a willingness to admit countries beyond the European heartland. A Europe that is either unwilling to do this or to assert itself militarily is not really serious about becoming a superpower - and should act accordingly.
#7
Not only could such an EU curb what are seen as U.S. unilateralism and militarism, it could also spread the sort of peaceful conflict resolution now prevailing in most of Europe to other parts of the world.
Something tells me that someone is looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
#9
The French tried it once around 1805, the Germans tried twice in the 20th Century. Fortunately, the window of opportunity in history has now passed, for the better.
#11
Other countries may want to join the EU, but the EU itself has closed the door on them. The future now lies with a potential Middle East Common Market, whose core states will be Turkey and Iraq. As other nations wish to join *them*, they will have to reform to their standards. The great irony of this will be that finally get their reformed "empire", but not under a Sultan or even as a religious state. As a predominantly secular, democratic confederation in competition with Europe. Eventually, I can imagine it incorporating Libya, Egypt and other northern African nations, Jordan, Syria, Saudi, Yemen, Oman, the UAR, Azerbaijan, and perhaps Jordan. Ironically, Iran will be to them as Russia is to the EU, too powerful and too different to become a member.
#14
It's it amazing they really didn't kill each other (except for that dust-up)at the end of the 20th century. All because they're willing to talk and have a process.
Not only could such an EU curb what are seen as U.S. unilateralism and militarism, it could also spread the sort of peaceful conflict resolution now prevailing in most of Europe to other parts of the world.
That "peaceful conflict resolution now prevailing in most of Europe" is courtesy of the United States military, dipshit.
By all means, EU, help spread that to other parts of the world.
Of course, that would mean we'd be too busy for you, but what the hell - you don't need us anyway, right?
Right?
I lived in Europe for 3 years and NEVER got this stupid, so I doubt it's something in the soil or water.
Of course, I drank tap water, not the bottled stuff. Hmmmm....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/22/2005 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"The EU has the potential for doing this because it has an asset neither the United States nor any other country (or group of countries) possesses: the desire on the part of other countries to join it."
Yeah, the Turks had that desire, but I suspect enough was said in France in the last month to make it clear to the Turks that they're chasing a rotten carrot dangling from the end of a termite-infested stick.
Posted by: Tom ||
06/22/2005 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#17
This article forgets that while the no countries are joining the US, millions of people are anxoius to join the US every year. In the choice between political elites vs people, go with the people every time.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/22/2005 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#18
If they were talking about some Asian version of the EU, maybe....but not the EU as it is today.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
