Posted on December 3, 2007 - by Venik
Western press on Russian elections
I guess sometimes the desire to criticize is just too overwhelming to resist. Western journalist covering the Russian elections resemble a herd of wildebeest crossing a river, falling prey to logic and common sense. An unstoppable desire to print something scathing, and brutal, and full of appearance of righteous indignation. It doesn’t matter if the facts don’t fit. If reporting news relied on facts alone, newspapers would be small enough to be printed on bubble gum wrappers.
TIME: Putin’s Reaganesque Victory
[Putin's Reganesque Victory, by Tony Karon, Time, Dec. 3 2007]
Tony Karon of the Time says that “there was little surprise in the results of Russia’s parliamentary election…“, and that “…few doubt that United Russia would easily have won even if the election had been free and fair…“, and even that Putin makes “…Russians feel good once again about their country.”
So Tony Karon says that Putin is genuinely popular in Russia and that his party would have easily won the elections no matter what. At the same time Karon says the elections were not free and fair. Is it just me or do you also see a gap in Mr. Karon’s logic? Unfair elections is when the result does not reflect the will of the majority. Like when Bush was “elected” in 2000.
Karon compares Putin’s popularity in Russia to Reagan’s popularity in the US: “Reagan’s own popularity — even among many Democrats — owed less to his specific policies (tax cuts, arms buildup) than to his overall success in restoring Americans’ national pride and optimism… Putin’s success, similarly, is based on reversing the national sense of gloom and doom that accompanied the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. While lionized in the West for his anti-communist stance, Yeltsin is remembered at home for ushering in an era of economic and social catastrophe, rampant kleptocracy and a series of geopolitical humiliations at the hands of the West.”
As you can see, all you need to do to be regarded in the West as a truly democratic leader of Russia is: 1) blame the Communists, while conveniently forgetting your own high-ranking Communist background; 2) create the most corrupt government in a country famous for its government corruption; 3) drink heavily. Then and only then you will receive the stamp of approval from the Time (in partnership with CNN).
The Economist: How it was rigged
[How it was rigged, anonymous editorial, The Economist, Dec 3 2007]
I have to say, the garbage The Economist prints these days… They really ought to pay you for buying their tabloid. Consider this: “Nor was there any doubt that the poll was rigged. “The election was not fair and failed to meet standards for democratic elections,” concluded the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe…” It’s the same OSCE which decided not to send any election observers to Russia. OSCE chiefs got their panties in a twist, because they received their visas to go to Russia on Thursday instead of Tuesday.
The Economist is known for its casual attitude toward facts. This is probably why you will not find any in this particular article. Still, even The Economist cannot deny Putin’s popularity among Russians, and, just like Tony Karon from the Time, the anonymous author is forced to admit: “The irony is that United Russia would have won anyway…” So, if they would have won anyway, what would have been the point of going through all the trouble? The Economist shines with logic and clarity: “The rigging matters nonetheless because it again demonstrates Mr Putin’s contempt not only for his critics, but for Russians as a whole…”
The Economist says that Putin rigged the elections not because he had to, but just to stick it to those Russians. Brilliant.
The Economist: Putin’s phoney election
[Putin's phoney election, anonymous editorial, The Economist, Dec 1, 2007]
As you can see, this article was published before the elections in Russia. Why wait for the actual elections to criticize the results, right?
The anonymous author complains that “The results were fixed months ago, when the Kremlin changed the rules. To keep the opposition out of parliament, the Kremlin raised the threshold for seats to 7%, and banned small parties from forming coalitions to meet this requirement. The minimum turnout rule was abolished, as was the option to vote against all candidates. Regional parties and single-mandate seats that let in independent deputies were scrapped.”
In other words, Russia’s new rules for parliamentary elections now look much more like those in the US and the UK. Now all the foreign-financed special interest groups in Russia, mascarading as political parties and nonprofit organizations, will not be able to get seats in the Russian parliament. What terrible injustice!
And once again, while publishing all the hearsay and unverifiable rumors, The Economist is forced to admit the obvious: “…rising living standards and a new sense of stability… made Mr Putin genuinely popular.” And even: “Two-thirds of Russians consider the concentration of power in Mr Putin’s hands to be a good thing. Most would like him to stay for a third term.” Apparently, it is the essence of free and democratic elections that they must be rigged for a successful and popular politician to win the people’s approval. According to The Economist anyway.
The Star: Victory for Democracy in Russia and Venezuela
[Victory for Democracy in Russia and Venezuela, Richard Gwyn, The Star, Dec 4, 2007]
Seems like Richard Gwyn of The Star came up with the best way to summarize all the unhappiness of the Western press with the Russian elections: “A cardinal fact about the Russian election was that, even though seriously flawed, Russians voted the way they wanted to. They voted for the leader they wanted.” And here you have your problem: the Russians voted the way they wanted, which was not the way the West wanted Russians to vote.
Apparently, this was just too big of a shock for the West: for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West completely failed to control the outcome of elections in Russia. Not only Putin, like a bad cold, keeps coming back year after year, this time none of the pseudo-political organizations financed by the West got any parliament seats. Just how would the EU and the US meddle in Russian politics now? Through stupid newspaper articles?
And then Gwyn writes something that should be printed, framed and hanged on the wall: “These days, both Russia and Venezuela are being propelled upwards from economic misery by their luck in possessing vast oil resources at a time when the price of oil has bobbed up toward $100 a barrel. Also, both nations have been suffering not just economically but morally, that is, in their sense of themselves.”
If you are confused as to why Russians and Venezuelans should feel depressed about high oil prices and suffer “not just economically but morally” in the face of rising standards of living, don’t worry: you are not alone. In Canada they actually get upset, when things go well.
Garry Kasparov
The former world chess champion has been what they call a “vocal opponent” of Putin. I love chess and I have great respect for Kasparov as a grandmaster. Not as a politician, though. As an opposition “leader”, Kasparov is worse than useless: he compromises and discredits the political forces he supposedly represents.
“Kasparov” just happened to be a marketable brand abroad and the Russian opposition is targeting their foreign supporters (“sponsors” would be a more precise term). However, there is little doubt that in their race for foreign approval and, most importantly, financial backing, some Russian opposition leaders seriously compromised their reputation among the Russian voters, who see Kasparov as a feather-weight on the political arena at best, and at worst – a sellout to Western interests.
I dare you to go to Google News, pull up any article by or about Kasparov and find there anything beside empty criticism of Putin and the Russian government. The man may be a great chess player, but in politics he has not a single original idea to his name. Kasparov’s political platform begins and ends with anti-Putin rhetoric. For the Russian opposition the perfect scenario would have been to have two leaders: Kasparov – to give interviews to CNN and BBC and to shake down wealthy foreign donors; and someone else, with fresh practical ideas and credibility on the home front.
The political force behind Kasparov is dubious at best: a hodgepodge of opposition activists, self-proclaimed civil rights defenders, and special interest groups with Western sponsors. Few of these organizations are registered in Russia as legitimate political parties. They complain that the bureaucracy of the registration process was too much for them to handle. It’s like kindergarten, really. The uneasy coalition of these groups, therefore, is not recognized under the Russian law. Consequently, Kasparov is not a recognized presidential contender and, chances are, will not even get on the presidential election ballots in 2008.
Most Russians believe Kasparov is irrelevant. Not because he opposes the hugely-popular Putin, not because his supporters are poorly organized and not legally recognized, but because Kasparov has no plan and no way forward. All the man has to offer is criticism of the current government. Kasparov thinks it’s all a big game. Hell, he even wrote a book about how he thinks politics is like chess. If it is, though, I see a big fat checkmate in Garry’s future.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
Related posts:
- Kasyanov barred from elections
- Western Journalists in Russia: Dazed and Confused
- Russia’s liberals: the identity crisis
- The Makings of a Successful Foreign Policy
- Ukrainian Elections
