You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Russian Parliament Passes Bill to End Election of Governors
2004-12-08
President Vladimir Putin's plan to end the election of governors by popular vote passed its final legislative hurdle Wednesday when the Russian parliament's upper chamber approved the bill. The law, which has been criticized as a step back from democracy, would give the president the right to appoint governors, who would then be confirmed by regional legislatures. If lawmakers reject the president's candidate twice, he could make a new nomination, appoint an acting governor, or dissolve the legislature. If a candidate is rejected for the third time, the president can dissolve the legislature without waiting for consultations to play out.
"The Imperial Senate legislature will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor President Putin has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away." "But that's impossible. How will the Emperor President maintain control without the bureaucracy?" "The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local's in line."
The Kremlin-loyal upper house, the Federation Council, approved the legislation by a vote of 145-1, with two abstentions. Putin must now sign the measure into law. "The most important thing now is that we can promise the population that the mere possibility of corruption is excluded, because the president himself takes responsibility for the person he entrusts with power as the head of the region," said Yuri Chaplin, a member of the upper house.
Then his lips fell off.
The Federation Council also approved legislation that raises the bar for political parties to get registered, requiring 50,000 members instead of the current 10,000 members, and setting a minimum membership of 250 in regional branches, compared with 100 now. The bill is expected to make it much harder to register new political parties. The vote was 131 in favor, with one abstention. Once that bill is signed into law, parties will be required to reregister by 2006.
Posted by:Steve

#15  once a RED KBG, always a RED KGB
Posted by: Uleque Hupavise4887   2004-12-08 9:40:05 PM  

#14  Back to the Soviet model, since that worked so well, eh Vladdie?

Maybe he's insan^H^H^H^H^H expecting a different outcome the next time around?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-12-08 3:57:27 PM  

#13  What Putin is really afraid of is having to deal with the Russian equivalent of this governor:





Posted by: BigEd   2004-12-08 1:28:18 PM  

#12  I think it serves us all well to remember that Pakistan pursues its own national interests. First, second, third and fourth on that list of national interests is countering India. Much of the prior support of the Taliban was predicated on securing a base to train jihadis to infiltrate Kashmir. There are undoubtedly elements in ISI that would love to see Karzai fail so that they can go back to dominating Afghan politics, but the Pakis probably aren't actively meddling...for the moment.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-12-08 11:49:00 AM  

#11  Pakistan has ceased to destabilize Afghan only because we've threatened Musharraf with political extinction. Again, there's nothing unique about Russia's failure and its effect on foreign policy. Saddam's failed state invaded and terrified his neighbors in order to show his people that ba'athism was the leading edge of pan-Arabism. Castro's failed state sought to destabilize Central America and Bolivia and sent troops to Angola as well.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-08 11:42:37 AM  

#10  Pakistan has been and still is a cause of "failure" in Afghanistan and NW India.

Pakistan AFAIK has stopped from being a significant factor in harming Afghanistan. And as for Kashmir that's a) localized, only a small part of India, doesn't affect democracy in the rest of India b) not sure I'd blame *only* Pakistan for it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-08 11:27:17 AM  

#9  Russia is not only a failure in itself, but also the cause of failure in other countries

Typically eurocentric remark. Pakistan has been and still is a cause of "failure" in Afghanistan and NW India. Failed and failing states are always toxic to their neighbors because their governments typically can gain legitimacy only through pointless adventurism directed at their immediate neighbors.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-08 11:13:10 AM  

#8  If Russia was just a "failing state", the problem would have been much smaller than it is. If it was just like Nigeria or Pakistan, the problem would have been small.

The problem however is that Russia is not only a failure in itself, but also the cause of failure in other countries.

(ObRef to Henry IV.)
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-08 11:02:41 AM  

#7  I know it well, Dread. Informs much of my analysis.

Don, Poland's communist stooges were never able to destroy civil society, as Stalin did. In Poland you have strong and independent free associations of citizens-- unions, the Church, farmers' groups-- that can involve the public in the business of governing themselves and serve as a defense against tyranny.

In Russia, no such associations exist. There are no unions of any consequence. The Church is completely corrupt and commands no allegiance from anyone under 60. Independent farmers were literally killed off in Stalin's war against the peasantry. Russia is quite simply a failing state with vast oil and gas wealth. Nigeria north. But with brilliant scientists, hackers and beautiful women.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-08 10:49:27 AM  

#6  So this is managed democracy?

Lex, I suggest you read Pipe's "Russia Under the Old Regime." The Russian notion of governance was learned under Mongol tutelage and hasn't improved since.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-12-08 10:36:10 AM  

#5  Someone pointed out that Americans are far more shocked by this than Europeans. America is almost unique in wanting governors to be "independent" of the ruling party. For the most part, governors are seen as being much like a cross between cabinet ministers and subordinate prime ministers assigned to regional governments, almost like liasons with the national government.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-12-08 10:35:05 AM  

#4  Back to the Soviet model, since that worked so well, eh Vladdie?
Posted by: mojo   2004-12-08 10:32:30 AM  

#3  Compare the current situation in Poland and Russia. Poland took the hard medicine to evolve their economy, government, and society. The Russians took a dead end.
Posted by: Don   2004-12-08 10:24:24 AM  

#2  Putin's not the problem. It's an institutional problem that goes back to Yeltsin and, really, the CPSU. Russia's government doesn't really govern. It can't pass laws, enforce the laws, administer justice, protect its borders, put down mickey-mouse insurrections, or pay pensions (unless oil's >$40/bbl) or fund hospitals or schools.

Our incompetent MSM journos are incapable of reporting on this, the truly important story in Russia, but the fact remains: Russia is a failing state.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-08 10:18:28 AM  

#1  Putin is becoming has become a monster
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-08 9:43:49 AM  

00:00