You may call it a shoo-in or charade but it doesn’t matter much either way.
The result has been a foregone conclusion from the moment Vladimir Putin
anointed his acolyte, Dmitry Medvedev, as his chosen successor.
It would have been simpler all round if, at the appointed hour on March 2, the
Russian people were simply asked to honk their car horns for the Chosen One.
The resultant cacophony would make him president by acclamation. It would
not only be simpler but also more honest. This does not mean that next
Sunday’s election is meaningless. On the contrary, it tells us a great deal
about the state of the Russian nation, all of it extremely disconcerting.
When I began what has been a journey of some 10,000 miles across Russia from
Murmansk to Vladivostok, my lodestar was Winston Churchill’s aphorism about
the Soviet Union being “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.
Having met hundreds of Russians of all types, I now think that there is no
riddle, precious little mystery and almost nothing that is enigmatic about
Putin’s Russia.
It has been an exhilarating and revelatory experience during which I have met
some wonderful people and been on the receiving end of the warmest
hospitality, but I have returned more aware than ever before that the
Russian people are not like “us”. In a fundamental way they neither belong
to the West nor share western values. While family life and social order are
just as precious to them as to us, their concepts of justice and freedom
have a quite different set of meanings from those to which we are
accustomed. Their tormented history and the political culture this has
nurtured set them sharply apart from, and frequently at odds with,
mainstream western thought.
At a gathering of glitterati in St Peters-burg, where I had imagined myself to
be among the city’s cosmopolitan elite, an exquisitely tailored young woman
(who winters in India because it is too cold and the days are too short in
her native city) told me: “Democracy for Russia would be death.”
Another added: “Anyway we have our freedom. Nobody cares about anything here.
That is our freedom. Everyone can choose.”
“So you can be free under a dictatorship?” I asked. “Of course. We have a
dictatorship already and we are free.” And, after a fashion, they are free:
they have the money to travel wherever they want and, at least in private,
they can say what they like without fearing a knock on the door in the
middle of the night. But, as they don’t care about concepts like
transparency or accountability, they represent no threat of any kind to the
Kremlin.
It is people like Mikhail Khodorkovsky (the oligarch who did not know his
place and is now in Siberia on trumped-up fraud charges), Anna
Politkov-skaya (the reporter murdered for uncovering the barbarity of
Russia’s war in Chech-nya) and Garry Kasparov (the leader of the Other
Russia party, harassed and arrested for exercising his constitutional right
to peaceful protest) – and many lesser-known luminaries – who have
discovered what a “sovereign democracy” does to you if the sovereign or his
henchmen disapprove.
I first went to Russia more than a quarter of a century ago to make two big
ITV series about the cold war rivalry between the superpowers. But this was
my first visit since 1989 when I had interviewed President Gorbachev for the
BBC.
I was startled by the huge changes that have taken place. But I was also
dismayed to discover the extent to which, in Putin’s Russia, the essential
principles of democracy have been systematically dismantled with hardly a
murmur of protest. Putin’s genius has been to manipulate the fears and
anxieties of a deeply insecure nation to the point where this election is
merely another chance for the voters to tell their president that, in their
eyes, he can still do no wrong.
The truth is that he could have ordained that his chauffeur should be elected
president and the voters would have flocked to secure that outcome, knowing
that, in his self-appointed role as prime minister, Putin will still be
running the country. It has been a very subtle and very effective coup
d’état.
RUSSIA’S malaise goes far deeper than the corruption of the electoral process;
it has eaten into the very soul of the nation. The politicians who sit in
the state Duma represent competing parties that don’t compete; that never
challenge the Kremlin on any issue of substance. They form a sham
parliament, a supine shell of a debating chamber. In the largest country in
the world, anyone who holds any position of power or influence in national,
regional or local government depends on the patronage of the Kremlin. Nor is
there anything left of what briefly passed for a “fourth estate” in Russia.
All the major television networks and almost every national newspaper of
note are directly or indirectly controlled by the Kremlin. With 21
journalists murdered across the country (which puts Russia third in these
gruesome stakes after Iraq and Colom-bia), editors and reporters are – not
unnaturally – cowed into submission and gagged by self-censorship.
The right to peaceful public assembly has been severely curtailed (except for
those rallying in Putin’s support). NGOs that refuse to be cheerleaders for
the Kremlin – the British Council is Continued frrom page 1 merely the most
prominent of many examples – are routinely harassed and, in some cases,
closed down.
To make matters even worse, the courts offer virtually no protection to the
citizen. No one is safe from arbitrary arrest on trumped-up charges that are
heard by pliant courts only too eager to do the bidding of the Kremlin and
its allies. As a result, the judiciary is universally regarded with a
mixture of fear and contempt.
The separation of powers by which civil society defines itself simply does not
exist. That is the constitutional essence of what Putin likes to call
“sovereign democracy” in 21st-century Russia.
Some of the president’s fiercest critics assert that Russia is lurching back
into totalitarianism. But the Soviet Union had a socialist ideology (of
sorts) and the dead hand of the Communist party was all-power-ful. By
contrast, postSoviet Russia lacks any ideology except a commitment to a
crude notion of capitalism in which the winners take all and the huge gap
between rich and poor is of no consequence. Nor is power flowing back to
political commissars in a neo-communist praesidium but rests ever more
assuredly with the clique of oligarchs and former KGB officers with whom the
president has surrounded himself.
On my way through Russia I was increasingly tempted to use the word “fascist”
to describe the essence of Putinism. I held back partly because the term is
much overused as gratuitous abuse and partly because I knew how offensive it
would sound to those whose parents and grandpar-ents had died in their
millions to save the world from fascism in what Russians call “the great
patriotic war”.
Many political scientists have wrestled with the concept of fascism, trying to
clarify its distinguishing features. Authoritarianism is, of course, a
defining characteristic; so, too, the elevation of nationalism to the status
of a paramount virtue; the manipulation of the electoral system to preserve
the outward forms of democracy while strangling its meaning; an intolerance
of serious opposition and, crucially, the emergence of a strong leader
supported by a powerful vanguard drawn from the business elite or the
leaders of “corporate capitalism” or, in Eisen-hower’s phrase, “the
military-indus-trial complex”. Putinism has all those characteristics and
more.
Following the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago when the values of a free
society were sorely tested by the excesses of Mayor Daley and his
storm-trooping police force, Gore Vidal coined the term “crypto-fascist”.
The further I went through Russia and the longer I stayed, the more I found
myself wrestling with the sickening thought that Vidal’s phrase properly
defined the character of the state that Putin has constructed about himself.
More dispiriting still was my discovery that, for all their great virtues,
the Russian people are not sleepwalking into this brave new world but
positively embracing it.
So far from having democracy stolen from them, they consciously seek to give
it away. At a most basic level “democracy” means simply “Yeltsin” or – more
palpably – insecurity, inflation, unemployment and social disorder. Again
and again I was told, from across the social spectrum and by people of all
ages, “Russia doesn’t need democracy, we need strength.”
In vain I would counter with liberal platitudes about the protection of human
rights and individual freedom. But the anarchic licence of the Yeltsin
decade was the only taste of democracy the Russians have ever experienced
and, with an intensity I had not imagined, it had disgusted them. Today,
many Russians are openly nostalgic for the “cradle to grave” certainties of
the Soviet Union, where order and stability reigned supreme. The
administrator of the war museum devoted to the battle of Stalingrad (now
Volgo-grad), who is far from being a lone voice in that city, went further.
“Stalin did marvellous things for this country . . . Of course there were
mistakes . . . but every leader has made mistakes. I would like to see our
country as it was when Stalin ruled over it: economically strong, beautiful,
with people who are happy and who have a future.”
In cities, towns and villages across this vast country, on boats and in
trains and taxis over a period of about 18 weeks, I had scores of
conversations; but I can think of only a handful in which I heard a
genuinely dissident voice. To an astonishing degree, Putinism has not only
captured the political high ground but also the very soul of the nation. In
achieving this end, the president has been able to play two trump cards, for
neither of which can he claim credit. The first is oil and the second is
American foreign policy.
Compared with the grim decade of the 1990s (when the economy contracted for
seven successive years), Russia’s growth rate since Putin came to power has
been spectacular at around 7% a year. Real disposable incomes have been
rising at more than 10% a year. Unemployment has been halved, foreign debt
has been eliminated and the treasury groans under the weight of its hard
currency reserves.
Putin has cleverly seeded the thought that the turnaround can be attributed to
his autocratic helms-manship. In fact it has been almost exclusively the
result of the energy windfall from the spiralling world price for oil and
gas, over which he has had no control. There is every reason to suppose that
the energy bonanza could have been used to much greater and more lasting
effect if Russia had been far more open, transparent, accountable and
subject to the rule of law.
As it is, hardly any commercial transaction of any kind can be completed
without the lavish greasing of official palms. Again and again I was told
that there is no other way to do business in Russia. In the words of a
genial British businessman, Clive Rumens (who doubles as Her Britannic
Majesty’s honorary consul in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk): “Of course
I will pay to speed up the system . . . My clients don’t understand if they
have to wait.”
The going rate is said to be between 5% and 10% of the total value of the
deal, a nationwide total that has been independently estimated to cost
business a mammoth $30 billion a year. At the other end of the scale, you
can bribe your way out of an on-the-spot speeding fine and buy a driving
licence with a backhander rather than take a test.
In the virtual absence of those organisations and institutions that define and
promote civil society, there is little sense of social responsibility.
Russians are left rudderless, their collective moral compass spinning wildly
in the service of individual survival. Cynicism prevails.
But Russians are united in their love of the motherland. And, courtesy of the
hand dealt him by the United States, Putin has played the “patriotic” card
to devastating effect.
The defining issue is not so much Iraq or Guantan-amo Bay or those “hanging
chads” in Florida – frequently thrown back at me when I tried to make the
case for democracy – but President Bush’s unilateral decision to tear up the
1972 ABM treaty and to install antimissile missiles deep in eastern Europe
within a few hundred kilometres of the Russian border, ostensibly to
confront a future threat from Iran.
This has alarmed and horrified Russians of every generation and outlook, who
chorus, “The missiles will be pointed at us. America wants to encircle us.
There is no other reason.” The plan has aggravated a national inferiority
complex already bruised by the casual arrogance with which America has
rebuffed the fallen giant since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
A cartoon video produced last year by the Kremlin-backed youth movement Nashi
(literally “Ours”) shows how closely paranoia and xenophobia lie beneath the
surface of Russian nationalism – and how easy these are to exploit. The
cartoon, which is designed to encourage young Russians to do their patriotic
duty as military conscripts, depicts America as an octopus threatening to
squeeze the life out of the motherland. A voice-over says urgently: “The US
is a big fat guy who has eaten too much and can’t stop gobbling up more and
more . . . And a significant part of the food that America wants is in
Russia . . . They have a choice: either to eat less and less and in the end
to stop growing and die or to come and get the food. They will come and get
it . . .”
At this point US missiles emerge from the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia
while US marines parachute into the Russian far east as the commentator
intones: “There is only one thing that will stop America going to war with
us: if our army is at the very least no weaker than theirs . . . otherwise
under the slightest pretext they’ll swallow us up.”
The same point is frequently made by the Kremlin itself. But to interpret this
as a return to the cold war is to muddle the point: there is no ideological
stand-off, no strategic rivalry between the former superpowers, no realistic
prospect of a military confrontation in Europe and no arms race in which
Russia would have any chance of victory.
Indeed, a cold war would seriously undermine Russia’s resurgence as an “energy
superpower”. But, whether or not Putin believes his own rhetoric about the
encircling US threat, Wash-ington’s assertiveness has been a political
windfall that made it even easier for him to assert that his “sovereign
democracy” offers the only route to national salvation. It is a deeply
dispiriting prospect.
SERGEI KOVALEV, a distinguished biophysicist, was charged in 1974 with
“antiSoviet agitation and propaganda”. He served 10 years in prison and
exile. In the 1980s he helped to fan the flames of freedom as Andrei
Sakharov’s confidant. He later chaired Boris Yeltsin’s human rights
commission but resigned over the slow pace of reform. Now an old man, he
ought to be a hero of the state. Instead he is a pariah, a voice crying in
the wilderness.
As we wandered through the labour camp where he had been held in solitary
confinement, he was in despair: “The state today is much more powerful than
it was in the time of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was better under Stalin
because at least everyone knew that it was a sham. I am now convinced that
our government will never be changed through the electoral system. Today
Russia is like a Liars’ Kingdom. We are ruled by liars.” That thought has
not left me since.
© Jonathan Dimbleby 2008
Russia: A Journey to the Heart of a Land and its People by Jonathan Dimbleby
will be published by BBC Books on May 15 to accompany the BBC2 series,
Russia – A Journey with Jonathan Dimbleby
This article is no different from the rest 99% that appear in English and American press. I see same old phrases over and over. Honestly, I think the authors keep cutting and pasting each other’s words.
Mr. Dimbleby, you acknowledge that Russian citizens, due to history and culture, have quite different concepts of freedom and justice. Why do you then overstrain yourself to impose western values upon them? Russians feel free and happy. Leave them alone.
Why English and Americans are so preoccupied with democracy in Russia?
No, It’s not about democracy!
It’s all about resources.. and they belong to Russian people.
Maria, San Diego, California
Oleg, Toronto, Canada is also correct to note PC culture has hugely restricted freedom of speech in the west for a generation.
Having the wrong opinion can have anyone hounded out of a job in the West, (BNP member for example), does this happen in Russia?
Daniel K888, Melbourne , Australia
Putin is a product of Russia, not the other way around. Countries get the governments and leaders they deserve. Sad but true. If they didn't have Putin they'd have to invent him. As we've found out, since invading Iraq, even Saddam Hussein was there for a reason. Free markets don't automatically equal democracy, and freedom of choice does not automatically bring with it the ability to make an informed choice.
Richard, Bexhill, UK
I think we are slightly missing the point here. President Bush and other world leaders dominating the political scene are not after democracy. They are after the oil, gas and other resources that Iraq, Iran and other countries in which they show 'humanitarian' interest possess.
Democracy is the veil they use to cover their real intentions and sell their rhetoric to their own voting public. Western leaders need to at least be shown to be humane as they they need the public vote to stay in power and carry out their inhumane actions in faraway countries.
Putin, Ahmadinejad and their ilk do not need the public vote and hence don't need to pretend to be chasing democracy.
True, there are a very many nations who are suffering at the hand of their regimes. I come from one such nation (Iran). As much as I would like my country to catch up with the free world and see fellow Iranians enjoy personal freedom, I dread foreign intervention to help meet this end.
EC, London,
It may be that the stupid old Russian reactionaries of the century before the last were right all along with their "Czar, Church and Autocracy ". Every country in its humour, I guess.
As others have commented here, the Russian people and their government seem to be of the same mind, which is more than the Western "democracies" can claim.
charles, USA,
This article is one of the most accurate depictions of today's Russia and Russian popular sentiment at the moment. This account is an exemplar of unbiased reporting where author's personal favourable predisposition toward the people he is writing about is coupled with nearly scientific philosophic gaugement of social and cultural situation in the country. It is revealing and touches on more then just the state of the Russian nation the fate of which is closely entertwined with the fate of other countries on both sides of the globe. Well done.
Sergius, A,
I think that its just sad that russians have started to compare their situation with Nigeria..
Its sad that russia is always looking away despite their all problems. The same thing has happened all the time. Russia has a "problem" with all the little neighbours.
And now this remark that "hey if you thing that we are bad, look at Nigeria". Do you feel that you cannot compare yourself with highly developed countries?
But on the other hand its easy to compare yourself with a country what currently is holding 158th place in human development index and say that everything is just supperb in our wonderland.
Geerd, Berlin, Germany
To Claire and others:
Russia and russian people are only menacing as a result of the articles similar to this one. The only war that Russia started was Afganistan and look at what happened when Russia left. I agree with Evgeny and Oleg. The country has made a lot of progress with Putin. Its development finally reflects what its people need, not some western advisors or self serving oligarchs. We have a lot of problems still but we want to solve them in our interests, not in the interests of the advisors or oligarchs. Take back your sponsored opposition who hate the country and have zero support here. Leave us alone. This is what democracy means for us now, a country that works for its people. We will have proper democratic institutions when we are ready. In the 90-s, democracy was abused to rob the country, something was obviously not working. Economic freedom and social stability are priorities for now.
Elena, Novosibirsk,
Here is a good example of a promissing beginning and a totally disappointing development and conclusions. The authors states from the very start that Russians are different (I personally have never understood what the parameters for difference are? Ar Chinese different? How different?). Logically, since we are different, then the criteria for goodness-fit established fpr those who are not different (from the author, that is) cannot be directly aaplied. However, it is exactly what the authors subsequently does: He tries to criticize the whole nation's behaviour and consciously made choice (Sic! Democracy at work ))) using the framework, that, after the author's own observation, is quite alien to these people! Is it just me or is it old Anglo-Saxon view of the world that screams between the lines about the God-given right to tell right from wrong?
Andrej, Glasgow, Scotland
The author, here happened high prices of the oil. Now describe to us about the successes and an increase in the economy for example in Nigeria.
Mikhail, Moscow, Russia
Mr.Dimbleby,
It is the best material about Russia I've seen for a long time. Without prejudice or arrogance you gave the true picture of my country today... Thank you!
Yuri, Vladivostok,
I've learned at least two new things on this forum-- both from presumably post-Soviet nationalists. From Volodimir from Kiev I've learned that Armenians and Georgians are Slavs (in fact first are some isolated indo-european language and the latter is not indo-european, maybe related to basque). From Silver in Tallinnnnn I've learned that Estonia is a part of the Westttt (not that I try to debunk this one-- just never thought about it, I also recently saw an attempt of a Latvian citizen to explain where Latvia was to a German-- even reference to the glorious colonial past did not to). As for the rest of article and comments-- I've seen it all verbatim many times... Any actual news from Russia? Ever?
dmitri, Rostov/London,
Mr Dimbleby, this is a very good article. Democracy is first about institutions which legislate, execute and judge. If these institutions do not function with the right mix of checks and balances there is no long term hope for society. Some readers have written polemics here about recent cases of UK being dragged into war, EU, etc against the will of the people and press manipulations as proof of lack of "democracy" in the West. No physical or social phenomena is a straight line in the universe. What counts is the presence of insitutions and their relationship with each other and with the people. As long as the insitutions are there, there is hope for correction. If the insitutions are not there, there is no hope at all !
Haluk Toral, France,
Oleg,
we do not live in a perfect world. It does not exist. Similarly, perfect democracy does not exist. If you compare Russia and the West.. it is evident, that the West is much closer to the democratic perfectionism than Russia. How much does democracy suit every country? i believe it's an endless debate. Moreover, you mentioned how western governments neglected the opinion of people. BUT they never suppressed it!! Americans and British criticize their leaders explicitly. Journalists don't perish in mysterious accidents. Apart from Kasparov, you can hardly hear any criticism of Putin in Russia (no leader is perfect despite his popularity). Do Russian people sincerely believe that obedience rather than criticism leads to perfectionism?
Ramojus, Vilnius, Lithuania
I think it's fair to say that the US and UK are not purely democratic and that democracy is not always the best way for a country to be ruled HOWEVER it is absurd to suggest in any way that Russians have as much freedom as us. Also, I think it is a waste of time to argue whether or not Russia is a democracy because it is fairly evident that the Russian government is menacing and a negative force in our world. I am not saying they are the worst out there but they murder their enemies, threaten other countries and do not contribute to the global community in the form of environmental or foreign policy
Claire, London,
I always find that there is a cyclical character to Russian history.... the same archetypes seem to pop up again and again. For instance, I tend to associate Putin with Nicholas I. The strong authoritarian hand on the tiller that many Russians regard as the best insurance against chaos. Please feel free to pull my analogy apart if you feel it is warranted!
Peter, Newcastle, Australia
Hallelujah!.... Mr Dimpleby's article is not anywwhere near as grounded and realistic as the 5 comments posted so far, I agree with Oleg, Dwight, Ignas, Andre and John. Keep posting your observations please gentlemen.
You are correct; our western democracy is very self-serving and flawed. I feel that the media industry is responsible for helping mould the voting populaces opinions. However the keen incisive journalistic standards we crave to bring not only these flaws and inconsistencies, but also what is good and just to our attention is, I'm very sorry to say, lacking these days. I know some excellent journalists and they are certainly not in the minority, but they all need to keep food on the table and as they rise higher in the industry their ideals sink lower under the weight of the business priorities of their employers. Also they rely too heavily on the US heavies; NYT etc. and the wires Reuters etc. to guide or determine the slant of their stories.
C, Australia,
I am Russian and I've lived in the US for 7 years. I can compare Russian and American press and online forums. and I can tell that American press is way more brainwashing than Russian is. And your online forumes are censored much more than Russian ones are. In Russian internet, in most forums, they will delete your comments only if you use curse words. And in American and British ones they deleted my totaly polite comments several times only because I had a different oppinion than the owner of the website.
Maria, San Francisco, USA
Alexey, Nigeria is exactly what Russia could become even with sky-high oil prices - a failed state. The only reason it didn't happen that way is that Putin dealt with Khodorkovsky and Co. quickly and effectively.
Our well-educated ppl got the picture right, except those like Kovalev who live by Western grants .
We are in a period when "democracy" leads to chaos - nobody wants to go back to 90-s - look at Ukraine.
Saying that we are lucky with oil is like saying that Russia was lucky with winter in 1812, one got to use favourable situation wisely.
As for the competition, in our segment we used to have foreign competitors, now there are none, we snatched the market from them - that's the fact.
In other issues I couldn't agree with you more - we got some bad problems and have to solve them. When the system is fine-tuned we could go back to democracy issue if anyone wishes.
Evgeny, Moscow,
"In cities, towns and villages across this vast country, on boats and in trains and taxis over a period of about 18 weeks, I had scores of conversations; but I can think of only a handful in which I heard a genuinely dissident voice."
I'm so happy to hear such kind of confession from old foe of Russia!!! As well as the words of despair from Mr.Kovalev that is being hated by most of Russians for his collaboration with Chechen bandits.
"We are ruled by liars.†That thought has not left me since."
Mr. Dimbleby, the brave and frank confession of the fact that YOU and YOUR country are "ruled by liars" does you honor.
Dirk, Germany,
Evgeny, I don't care about foreign advisors. I don't know why you use Nigeria as example. Really it is a failed state, not a democracy. Norway would be a better example... The subject that is most interesting to me in the article is how easily our people, including well-educated ones, got convinced that democracy is not for us. It is not true. If we were not lucky with oil, it would be very easy to see that autocracy does not create wealth (not to mention it is also more inhumane)... I also work in real business. Never worked for the government, always worked for private companies - in Russia, in US, in Europe and back home again... just to illustrate why I can compare. We are not competitive in anything but commodities. Ashamed, not ashamed... again, those are feelings, emotions, not important if we talk facts. To be competitive we have to have good judicial system (not "admin resource system"), competitive environment, quality education, etc. Hardly possible under Tsar.
Alexey, St.-Petersburg, Russia
First of all, thumbs up to Jonathan for a very balanced article. As a russian I am positively surprised to find such nuanced treatment. Too bad that most comments are barking up the wrong tree - there are scores of self-righteous "Russia experts" in the western media writing up those "democracy lectures" out of cheap cliches.
After the tumultuous 90-s the ruling elite and the society reached and equilibrium, the people don't want to be bothered by politics and the elite doesn't want to be bothered by the people. Does the current government represent the majority. Yes. Is there a democratic system? Are there proper institutions? No.
I would only take odds with the "Russians are not like us" claim. It can be a dangerously discriminating proposition. Let's put it this way, Russians just have different life experiences.
Alex, Buffalo,
ok...so you say high prices for oil= putin's succes....
lets talk bout nigeria maybe?they have gas and oil as well only.....do they live like russians?as faras i know they dont............so maybe putin's succes is his politic?take it as a note...
gena, kaliningrad, russia
Alexey, what's wrong with oil prices? Do we have to be ashamed of them or use a good opportunity?
Thanks to Putin the revenues now go to the budget instead of to pockets of the few oligarkhs. Look at, say, Nigeria with its oil - that's what we missed by a thin margin.
Personally, I work in real economy segment and I can tell you that our production output twofolded in less than 8 years - it has nothing to do with the lack of the so-called democracy. As I said, just leave us alone, we'll figure out ourselves what to do with our own country, we are fed up with foreign advisors who hide their economic interests under false words.
Evgeny, Moscow,
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
Thank you for your interest to my person. I came from a humble family, I grew up in Russia and seen it all: socialism, perstroika and wild capitalism. I am fluent in Russian and English. I am successful in my profession and this allows me to travel around the world and visit countries like USA, UK and Russia. This in turn allows me to have my opinion about those countries and perceptions of the West towards Russia. Yes, I am a patriot of Russia and Canada. I find Canada very close to Russia in terms of openness of its people and strong sense of community. However, I see a lot of hypocrisy that comes from the West and I would like to point it out whenever I see it. I am absolutely against the current trend of demonizing Russia and blaming it for every Western problem. Russia has just started moving towards West and it will take a long time to be there. West should be showing a good example, instead it only shows double standards like in the article above.
Oleg, Toronto, Canada
It is certainly remarkable how both Russia and China have succeeded in adapting to capitalism while at the same time holding on to or even strenghtening the rigid structures of communist doctrines..
Ray Massart, Hombeek, Belgium
An excellent article & a brilliant grasp of the subject! (And for its "critics" - plain common sense advises to discuss only the notions contained in the text, and not one's own speculations on them).
bg, Riga, Latvia
Evgeny, let's face it: we are getting rich because of commodity prices. Reality is our economic boom is the function of oil price. It works even against the negative factors of bad governance. However, when you compare growth rates to other CIS countries, you will find us at the bottom. Our economy is simply NOT competitive. Currently we do not compete on anything other than ownership of natural resources. Most of the reforms under alegedly "efficient" governance - judicial/administrative/pension/healthcare/education/... failed due to lack of engagement from people, lack of free press, lack of control from people. If ever the price of natural resources go down, democracy will once again become relevant.
Alexey, St.-Petersburg, Russia
If mainstream Russians close their eyes to the suppression of those at the political margins, they should not be surprised when things start go badly for those in the mainstream. In short, they will eventually get what they deserve. It seems too much to hope for that other countries will escape the turmoil.
Gerard, London, UK
Dear JB, Glasgow,
What might seem a problem to one is a normal thing to another. You most likely wouldn't be happy if, say, Muslim people try to enforce their normal standards of life all over Yorkshire.
Russia doesn't need any snob's critics, just leave us alone! Don't surround us with military bases, don't sponsor anti-Russian movements, don't push us around. All we want is live in peace, trade with others, get rich.
It's a real pity that American military complex and greedy businesses supported by hypocritical Western media won't stop.
Evgeny, Moscow,
to Andre,
ALL the people in Soviet Russia loved Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc. Even people, whos both parents were murdered by Stalin cried when the dictator died. The same in N-Korea etc.
The western press is not 100% free but it is free enough to publish anti-Bush and anti-Brown articles. And suprisingly the critical authers do not have the same fate than the ones in Russia.
Popularity is strongly linked with the way the press is covering you.
Putin knows that very well and thats way he (or lets be juridically correct Gasprom, which is suprisingly owned by the Kremlin) buys all the media.
I agree that criticism is always a good thing when its aim is to ameliorate the world. Western people do not criticise Russia because we hate russians. All kinds of objective critisim to the west is welcome from Russia, until its not "all of you are bad capitalists and fascists."
Russian definition to democracy is: "Its a thing we have to fake that the west would stop whining with us"
Silver, Tartu, Estonia
I lived in Moscow for two years, from 2001 to 2003 and was often surprised at the way that my friends and colleagues didn't discuss politics, although they always dutifully voted in the elections. Over the last few years, though I have started to see the same thing happening in the UK, as people recognise that actually politicians here pay no attention to the opinions of the electorate and dilute our sense of self-worth, we are becoming a nation of people who get on with our lives irrespective of what is happening in Westminster.
The only difference between the UK and Russia is that Russians know they don't live in a democracy, we still think we do.
Mary, Newcastle,
Western analysis of the Slavic half of Europe has always been a bit off the mark. For example, for most of the last century, the powerful and connected in the west (and the media and universities they controlled) merrily accepted the view that the Soviet Union was "Russia" (and that Yugoslavia was "Serbia"), thanks to the power and influence of Great Russian Chauvinists. This popular view of Moscow (and Belgrade) may have been stereotypical but it was hardly unsympathetic. Indeed, the adulating sycophancy towards “Russia†in the west was often the first and greatest impediment faced by the many other Orthodox Slavs (Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Belorusins, etc.) occupied and exploited by “Russia†(and Orthodox Macedonians, etc. trying to free themselves from “Serbiaâ€). The west has and will likely continue to get it wrong with regards to this half of Europe but it certainly is not biased against “Russia†or “Serbia.†And its support of civil society in Ukraine, Georgia, etc.
Volodia D, Zhytomyr, Ukraine
Whilst I agree with most of Oleg's comments regarding democracy, I find it ironic that he is currently in Canada and has been for a while, i've seen his comments a lot on the Times website. Indeed I have noticed a trend on this website that happens whenever an article is posted about an unpleasant state of affairs in another country (Russia, Serbia, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc.), several posters who claim to be from said country start to post comments defending 'their' country and nearly every single one of them do not even live there. What does that tell you I wonder? I'm willing to bet that Oleg isn't even Russian, he's probably Canadian, born and bred but with Russian parent(s)! If you don't live there, you don't know, so what gives your comments any credence whatsoever?
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
Western world is a system of media-manipulations,democraticaly chosen wealthy representatives,
false democracy for immigrants e.g,in Canada lacking 113.000 doctors and nurses,all taxi-drivers are Lebanese or other nations doctors?!
West instead of Russian oligarchs have a handful of shady tycoons who rule the world.
Permanent wars and millions of killed is the only proof of their incapability and selfishness in making "New world Order".
The way western media depicts Russia or Serbia has become boring.We are fed of snubbing,mobbing "in the name of western democracy".
Bluntly, West has a fascist stereotype against Slavonic Orthodox people!
Shame!
anja popovic, Belgrade, Serbia
Most of my compatriots would enjoy good roads, reliable police, fair judges, excellent healthcare and other attributes of democracy. They just do not see a simple link: all of those goodies require great governance that can only occur in democratic environment. Time and time again we somehow let ourselves be convinced that democracy is not for us, and try our bad old habit of autocracy. For all 12+ centuries of Russian state we never tried democracy and yet many of us believe democracy is bad for us. In the end it is not Putin's fault.
Alexey, St.-Petersburg, Russia
"The politicians who sit in the state Duma represent competing parties that don’t compete; that never challenge the Kremlin on any issue of substance. They form a sham parliament, a supine shell of a debating chamber. "
How interesting, Singapore is eerily similar in this regard.
Lan Jiao, London,
Putin is extremely popular in Russia because he delivers. He gives people what they want and is a patriot. In that sense Russia is more democratic than either Britain or the US.
British people on the other hand never had a referendum about policies abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of the population, and known to be abhorrent, eg (1) massive Islamic and other immigration, (2) preferential changes in law to accomodate such immigrants (3) perpetual threats to their safety on planes, trains, roads arising from such immigration. (5) watering-down of their culture, history, achievments in schools and public places (4) change in the BBC to a PC medium ie to represent a small minority's socio-political point of view while at the same time there is no provision for the real authentic ethnic people - the British (5) the Iraqi war based on a lie.
Dimbleby himself had a "Russian" man wanted by two countries unashamedly talk about "democracy". Enough said.
Marco Borg, London, United Kingdom
.....also.....its very naive to say that our history made us a slavarey nation...dont forget...we had a revoluion here just 80 years ago......i think the only thing that we had revolution says that russians are not slaves.........
...
tolik, kaliningrad, russia
Oleg, while I understand what you're trying to say I don't understand why we should not admit that there ARE problems in Russia. Yes, there are problems in the US, UK but I'd look at Russia, the country we both seem to wish to become better. Critics always helps.
JB, Glasgow,
Reading this article I don t see that much general difference to this country, except that the style is clearly different. Over a long period, this country has developed a level of obscurity which Russia does not have, and one can hope that it never does have. Britain s imperial past has left it with an ingrained habit of criticising the governance of a country, usually in an endeavour to conceal or excuse its ulterior motives in the particular context.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Who on Earth is the author of this we-are-the-good-ones-everybobody-else sucks article???
Once again, we see the selfish moral attitude of so-called democracies...I adhere to Oleg's remarks...by the way, I truly hope this comment will be posted
Omar, Mexico, Mexico
Why is it that what we have in the west has to be replicated out across the world. it doesn't work. russian people are a strong tough bunch who desire strong tough leadership (a quote from my ukranian wifes russian friend). the type of democracy we have here does not fit what russia needs, or africa, or iraq, or afg.................................
i agree with Oleg's sentiments.
john, york, uk
Oleg, you make some very good points. We in the west (I am American), are always lecturing the world about democracy and imply that our forms of democracy are the best. The truth is that every country will define what type of government it wants - and what, if any, type of democracy it wants.
President Putin is far more popular among Russians than President Bush is among Americans or Prime Ministers Brown or Harper are in their respective countries (U.K. and Canada). We can disagree about whether he somehow "tricked" his people but, there is no question that the Russian people love their president. If that changes I am fairly sure that we will know that - by the number of people who would want to leave the country.
Oleg, you are also correct that the western press was easily manipulated into early support or aquisence of an unpopular and immoral war. The press can be controlled in any country - only the means may differ.
Andre, Machias, USA
Thats not true.
We share western value. Its just that we are not that military strong as the USA to enforce them on the rest of the world or bomb those who disagree with us.
Ignas, Tallinn, Estonia
The fact is that democracy (as we think we know it) is not suitable for all countries. It is unsuitable for China and apparently for Russia. The difference between the old hard-line communist regimes and now is that the people are given control of their economic destiny so long as they remain essentially apolitical. In the West, we have been brainwashed into believing that democracy is the ultimate goal for any country. However, democracy can only genuinely flourish in rich countries (voting in African countries is a bit of a farce). In China's case, with 1.3 billion population, there has to be a strong one-party central government for the benefit of the majority, which is contrary to democratic principles: yet its economy goes from strength to strength.
Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK
As about attitude to democracy, Russian are not different than anybody else in the world. They have their freedom, they fought for it and they won it. Actually, they don't have political correctness that overwhelms Western world. As well, the West doesn't have a "copy right" on democracy and has no moral right to pick and choose what country to be called democratic. In UK there is no referendum on EU participation. Is that democratic? Most of the UK population were opposed Iraq war, the goverment simply ignored its people, is that democratic? In US the goverment covered up all information regarding Pentagon strike on 9/11, is that democratic? As about the "feedom of speach", please explain how did US and UK got into Iraq, and why the goverments of these countries manipulated the mass media to fool their own people? Is the press really free, if it can be manipulated so easily? And by the way, why "The Times" censors its readers comments? Are YOU free? I don't think so, as many Russians.
Oleg, Toronto, Canada