Putins Zukunft

[Traitor]

Schon längere Zeit wurde darüber gemutmaßt, was Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin nach Ablauf seiner zweiten und verfassungsgemäß letzten Amtszeit im März nächsten Jahres zu tun gedenkt. Dass er sich nicht in den Ruhestand zurückziehen würde, galt als relativ sicher, naheliegend wäre also das übliche Mittel aller Semi-Diktatoren - pardon, großen Staatsmänner - der Verfassungsänderung gewesen. Offenbar wählt er nun den etwas diskreten Weg, das bisher nahezu wertlose Amt des Ministerpräsidenten anzustreben und entweder einen treuen Strohmann als Präsidenten zu installieren oder die Verfassung doch zu ändern, aber dahingehend, dass sich in Zukunft das Machtverhältnis zu Gunsten des Ministerpräsidenten verschiebt.
Siehe dazu einige aktuelle Spiegelartikel: Die nüchternen Fakten, ein Experten-Interview und eine herrlich böse Analyse.

Interessant finde ich diese Aussage aus dem Interview:

Tritt er im Jahr 2010 zurück, dann gäbe es Neuwahlen und Putin könnte wieder antreten.

Heißt das, nach einer Unterbrechung kann er wieder 2 neue Präsidentenzeiten einlegen? Und wenn ja, wie lang hat diese Unterbrechung zu sein? Klingt nach einer idealen Manipulationsklausel. Weiß jemand genaueres?

Ansonsten erscheint mir das Szenario der Machtumschreibung auf seinen neuen Posten dank der erdrückenden Mehrheit seiner Partei (auch wenn er der natürlich ja gar nicht angehört) am realistischsten.

[Lykurg]

Das war im alten Rom oder z.B. bei den Hamburger Bürgermeistern in etwas anderer Form absolut üblich - da das höchste Amt nur ein Jahr lang ausgeübt werden durfte, machten erfolgreiche Politiker ein Jahr lang was anderes (z.B. Geld für den Wahlkampf verdienen) und kamen nachher wieder.

Eine Person meines Vertrauens^^ hat eben in der russischen Verfassung nachgesehen... "nicht mehr als zweimal hintereinander" - er könnte also tatsächlich wiederkehren, wenn ein loyaler Interimspräsident ihm den Weg freimacht.

In der Zwischenzeit könnte er zwar dem Ministerpräsidentenamt mehr Macht zuweisen; da er das ja nachher rückgängig machen müßte, würde er vermutlich eher 'unauffällig' strippenziehen, bis er wieder im Amt ist.

[smoker6969]

Interessant finde ich diese Aussage aus dem Interview:
Zitat:
Tritt er im Jahr 2010 zurück, dann gäbe es Neuwahlen und Putin könnte wieder antreten.
Heißt das, nach einer Unterbrechung kann er wieder 2 neue Präsidentenzeiten einlegen? Und wenn ja, wie lang hat diese Unterbrechung zu sein? Klingt nach einer idealen Manipulationsklausel. Weiß jemand genaueres?

Didn't really understand all of that, but got an basic idea. According to the Russian constitution, a president can only run for 2 terms, after that, they must step down. It wouldn't take much for him to remain in power though. He could easily change the constitution with the support of his congress and "Pro-Putin" allies. Or, if there was an "terrorist" attack, or even if he believed their was an impending attack. I believe he could declare Martial Law, and stay President for as long as needed.

Personally, In my opinion, I would like to see him stay President. He has brought stability to the Russian economy, which is good for investments and businesses. The Russian military has started flexing it's muscles again and has had at least one stand off with the USA. If anyone is going to counter American Imperialism, it's Russia and China.

I would like to see him do something similar to what Hugo Chavez is trying to do in Venezuela. Were he could stay the leader consecutively with out having to step down or be reelected each term. It's better to have one person running the country if he/she is doing a good job. Rather then keep switching leaders who could or could not be positive for the country.

Anyway, that's just my opinion

[Lykurg]

1) The part you didn't understand was that the Russian constitution forbids to be President for more than two legislative periods in a row, but inexplicitely allows to become President again later on, e.g. after a loyal placeman took office and resigned one year later. Your assumptions about state-of-emergency legislation may be right, but if it is not necessary for him to bend the constitution he probably won't do so - it would weaken his position in the western world.

2) Putin's regime for sure brought more stability than Yeltsin's, but also a new (or rather old) despotism. The President and his partners gained by force control of the most important industries, and by a mixture of ownership and censorship completely ceased the freedom of press (though it never has been relevant there). International investors are aware of the dangers going with that. It is quite risky to build up external factories there when you don't know who might threaten and kill to ruin or take them...

3) We might have to arrange with graded models of near-term dictatorship in developing countries, but should not tolerate a backfall to tyranny in a democracy. Chavez' system is one of suppression and violence; his regime, based on the military forces and his basher squads, is highly inefficient, kept together only by the effervescent petrol income and sheer brutality.

Having a leader with unlimited power for too long time will ruin a country, no matter how well the ruler might have started.
You might have heard of one or two German dictatorships of the past. We know it. There is no need to try again.

[janw]

Wie gehen wir nur damit um, daß Putin eine erdrückende Mehrheit hinter sich hat - wenn ich das richtig sehe, seine Politik offensichtlich Volkes Wille nahekommt?
Und Chavez hat immerhin dafür gesorgt, daß das Land angemessen am wirklichen Gewinn aus dem Öl partizipiert...
Nein, natürlich gefällt mir der Mann überhaupt nicht, nur bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob sein Wahlsieg ausschließlich eine Folge seiner Gefolgsleute ist oder ob er nicht drängende Probleme bei den Menschen angesprochen hat, der Mehrheit, nicht den wenigen Privilegierten.

How can we get along with the fact that Putin has a great majority of voters behind him, his politics representing peoples' will, at least as far as it seems?

Chavez has at least achieved that his country now participates in oil revenue...

Of course I don't like that bloke, only I am not quite sure if his winning the election depended solely on a mob of supporters terrorrizing the voters. How much weight is there to be given to his addressing problems of a majority of his people, not only an upper crust of highly priviledged?

[smoker6969]

1) The part you didn't understand was that the Russian constitution forbids to be President for more than two legislative periods in a row, but inexplicitely allows to become President again later on, e.g. after a loyal placeman took office and resigned one year later. Your assumptions about state-of-emergency legislation may be right, but if it is not necessary for him to bend the constitution he probably won't do so - it would weaken his position in the western world.

2) Putin's regime for sure brought more stability than Yeltsin's, but also a new (or rather old) despotism. The President and his partners gained by force control of the most important industries, and by a mixture of ownership and censorship completely ceased the freedom of press (though it never has been relevant there). International investors are aware of the dangers going with that. It is quite risky to build up external factories there when you don't know who might threaten and kill to ruin or take them...

3) We might have to arrange with graded models of near-term dictatorship in developing countries, but should not tolerate a backfall to tyranny in a democracy. Chavez' system is one of suppression and violence]might have heard [/i]of one or two German dictatorships of the past. We know it. There is no need to try again.

1) I highly doubt he cares what the western world thinks of him. You have seen him in the past few years expel British Government workers, threaten to strike at European cites if US missiles were not removed as well many other things. If he tried to stay in power through force, I would not support him. But, as long as the people want him to stay, I believe he should.

2) Freedom? What freedom? Their is no "true" freedom anywhere. The USA calls it's self land of the free, yet 1% of the population is in prison. Land of the free, but you still can't do what you want, if it offends other people. You can't even curse on the Radio in America with out some Mother throwing a bitch fit and wanting the station closed down. Or suing them... The only free man, is a dead man.

3) Chavez system is certainly not one of violence and suppression. I live in the Caribbean, Bermuda, UK. Chavez was re-elected with an over whelming majority I beleive. His country is not a rich one, but he is not afraid to spread the money around. He gives oil to poor countries in exchange for his people being allowed to travel their with out visa's, or his country being given permission to start businesses there. What has these so called "first world" countries done to help the struggling and poor? Nothing, too busy counting their money and figuring out how to make more. The United States of America, the country with the highest GDP int he world, and they can not even contribute the same amount of money to countries that have survived natural disasters as Venezuela?

And right, as I said, if a leader is doing a good job, keep him in power for as long as he continues to do a good job. Or, you can play musical chairs and switch leaders ever 4 years, that's a great idea. You might even get a great leader like President Bush

[Ipsissimus]

The Russians have no true experience with democracy but a century-old tradition of the "strong leader". I think ANY Russian party with a concept of western democracy will fail in the long run. If they really like democracy, they never should have chased away Gorbatschow

It is a bit like the German "revolution" of 1988 - they said "freedom" but meant more private money, holidays on Mallorca and more television programs - and never considered the side-effects of a plain capitalistean society. Same thing in Russia. Putins "stability" only is advantageous for the so-called "new Russians" - the usual bunch of beneficiaries. For the remaining 95%: business as usual.

So I dont think Putin to be a counterpart to American imperialism. In fact he strives for a (old) new Russian imperialism with a new crew of main supporters, the new Russians. And he probably will succeed because he clearly understood economy to be the way to power.

Very probably Putin will be president again after the next legislative periode. Alternatively the next Russian president will dwell in the status of a puppet.

[Lykurg]

1) I highly doubt he cares what the western world thinks of him. You have seen him in the past few years expel British Government workers, threaten to strike at European cites if US missiles were not removed as well many other things. If he tried to stay in power through force, I would not support him. But, as long as the people want him to stay, I believe he should.

If he didn't care, why should he take part in international conferences, have visitors or hide his anti-separatism and pro-oil^^ war in Chechnya behind the smokescreen of "war against terrorism"? His popularity is a problem, but confer Ipsissimus - and add that there is no independent press left, while (as I heard several times from well-educated Russians with exterior contacts) all foreign media are brought into discredit to be so biased that no true Russian should read them.

2) Freedom? What freedom? Their is no "true" freedom anywhere. The USA calls it's self land of the free, yet 1% of the population is in prison. Land of the free, but you still can't do what you want, if it offends other people. You can't even curse on the Radio in America with out some Mother throwing a bitch fit and wanting the station closed down. Or suing them... The only free man, is a dead man.

For sure their exaggerated political correctness and media censorship because of a special pettishness lead to some double standard. But "your freedom ends where my nose begins." I wouldn't grant anyone the freedom to offend me in any way he or she likes...

3) Chavez system is certainly not one of violence and suppression. I live in the Caribbean, Bermuda, UK.

(which is just 2,400 km away from Caracas, but please continue^^)

Chavez was re-elected with an over whelming majority I beleive. His country is not a rich one, but he is not afraid to spread the money around.

They mobilized voters with basher squads and secured the results by voting openly at least in some districts... At the moment his country is very rich because of its oil exports. Venezuela is the 8th largest oil producer in the world] He gives oil to poor countries in exchange for his people being allowed to travel their with out visa's, or his country being given permission to start businesses there. [/QUOTE] The latter one could call an export subvention. Obviously that's a clever move to gain international influence. If I had 150,000,000 tons of oil a year, I wouldn't act different, I suppose.^^

What has these so called "first world" countries done to help the struggling and poor? Nothing, too busy counting their money and figuring out how to make more. The United States of America, the country with the highest GDP int he world, and they can not even contribute the same amount of money to countries that have survived natural disasters as Venezuela?

You completely ignored private helps. While in Venezuela possibly very few people could help much, there are lots of private donors and help organisations in the USA. They don't expect their country to do this. I wish it was the same here - I don't want the government to spend my taxes on things they were not collected to pay. The German government gave a huge amount of money to help after the Indonesian Tsunami - and I was ashamed of that. It is wonderful if people voluntarily spend money to help others. But if the government uses the people's money to show off with pompous gestures, it is a terrible abuse of their own citizens, of other countries and of the victims!

And right, as I said, if a leader is doing a good job, keep him in power for as long as he continues to do a good job. Or, you can play musical chairs and switch leaders ever 4 years, that's a great idea. You might even get a great leader like President Bush

Is in your estimation the suppression of dissidents essential part of doing a good job, or is it just optional?

[Ipsissimus]

If he didn't care, why should he take part in international conferences, have visitors or hide his anti-separatism and pro-oil

probably this can be explained as part of the game. Putin doesnt care about the spirit of international directives or agreements, but he uses the formalisms to accomplish his intentions

there are lots of private donors and help organisations in the USA.

wouldn't be necessary if the system is a human system^^

I wouldn't grant anyone the freedom to offend me in any way he or she likes...

:-) you know that this is not the meaning of the original statement^^

[Lykurg]

:-) you know that this is not the meaning of the original statement^^

Yes, but a correct consequence. In my opinion freedom must have a limit - though of course its definition shouldn't be as strict. Reducing my (quite balanced) answer to that sentence is also not what I meant...^^

wouldn't be necessary if the system is a human system^^

You are by far too clever to automatically call things that do not go with your political opinion "inhuman". This is a system question, and we won't get anywhere if we discuss more or less socialist ways of running a state. In the moment somebody needs help it is irrelevant whether help is given by a private person, a state or an institution. That help is given, matters.

probably this can be explained as part of the game. Putin doesnt care about the spirit of international directives or agreements, but he uses the formalisms to accomplish his intentions

We cannot know whether he personally cares, but you know the fulfillment of formalisms is exactly what I meant with "caring".^^

[Ipsissimus]

This is a system question, and we won't get anywhere if we discuss more or less socialist ways of running a state.

I agree with this. Indeed, when I said "human system" I didnt even think about a socialist system. But inhumanity can hide itself behind many facades; and the fact, that a specific facade crumbled away does not mean that remaining facades are more human - they are merely different (btw it would be a different topic of interest to discuss if it is the socialistic idea or the pratice of self-called socialist potentates which has to be characterised a inhuman^^). This is not a question of my political opinion - I even doubt to have one. It's only a fact that inhumanity is spreat all over the world

In my opinion freedom must have a limit

in my opinion political and social freedom never existed on earth. We only know states with higher and lesser degrees of regulations, higher and lesser degrees of privileges and higher or lesser degrees of sanctions and penalties

[Lykurg]

I agree, and I doubt there will ever be complete freedom, because in my estimation that is somehow an oxymoron. Nevertheless relative freedom should stay an important aim - and segregation of media and political power has high priority on my list, just after free, equal and secret elections...

[Maglor]

Es ist eine alte Tradition russischer Staatschefs, so lange zu regieren, bis man verjagen oder einbalsamieren muss. (Lediglich Jelzin gab den Chefsessel freiwillig auf wegen verfassungsrechtlicher und gesundtheitlicher Probleme.)
Ich finde den Weg Putins schon merkwürdig, immerhin hätte er ja durchaus eine Mehrheit für eine Verfassungsänderung und könnte dann problemlos wenigstens so lange wie Helmut Kohl oder Fidel Castro den Staat führen.
Doch kann Russland überhaupt noch ohne Putin? Er was, der den Oligarchen, die in der wilden Jelzin-Zeit die russischen Kronjuwelen untereinander aufteilten, die Flügel stutzte. Russland ist ein Land, wo man Stabilität noch zu schätzen weiß. (Auch ein Grund, warum man den schwachen Gorbatschow gegen den schwachsinnigen Putsch-Auflöser Jelzin eintauschen wollte.)
Ansonsten ist doch der jetzige Karierre-Schritt Putins vollkommen unbedenklich... In der Russischen Föderation wird sich dadurch nichts ändern, im Gegenteil.
Oder will irgendwer, dass in Russland ukrainische Verhältnisse ausbrechen?
MfG Maglor

[smoker6969]

You completely ignored private helps. While in Venezuela possibly very few people could help much, there are lots of private donors and help organisations in the USA. They don't expect their country to do this. I wish it was the same here - I don't want the government to spend my taxes on things they were not collected to pay. The German government gave a huge amount of money to help after the Indonesian Tsunami - and I was ashamed of that. It is wonderful if people voluntarily spend money to help others. But if the government uses the people's money to show off with pompous gestures, it is a terrible abuse of their own citizens, of other countries and of the victims!

In the moment somebody needs help it is irrelevant whether help is given by a private person, a state or an institution. That help is given, matters.

You are contradicting yourself.

in my opinion political and social freedom never existed on earth. We only know states with higher and lesser degrees of regulations, higher and lesser degrees of privileges and higher or lesser degrees of sanctions and penalties

I couldn't agree more.

I just find it funny when "freedom" is used for war. One of President Bush's reasons for invading Iraq was that he wanted to install "Democracy" in the Middle East.

I agree, and I doubt there will ever be complete freedom, because in my estimation that is somehow an oxymoron. Nevertheless relative freedom should stay an important aim - and segregation of media and political power has high priority on my list, just after free, equal and secret elections...

I do not believe in Elections at all... Not very hard for the government to "say" who was voted for.

I think I posted this just a little while ago,

"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." ~Stalin

(which is just 2,400 km away from Caracas, but please continue^^)

I hardly see what that has to do with anything? You live in Germany, correct? If their was a civil war in let's say... France. You would not feel the affects even though it is so miles away? Venezuela has a very strong influence in the Caribbean and Latin America. Hugo is seen as hero in most of the slums and even some high class areas here. Right alongside Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

Is in your estimation the suppression of dissidents essential part of doing a good job, or is it just optional?

Right, and the USA having a Government Funded and run organization to monitor and censor/edit all forms of electronic communication is not suppression? The USA imprisoning nearly all Japanese Americans during WWII was not suppression? Or what about Britain brutally exterminating the ethnic people of Australia and North America?

[Lykurg]

I don't contradict myself. For the one who needs help, it doesn't matter in the short term. For those who help it does. (I hoped one could figure that out...)

I do not believe in Elections at all... Not very hard for the government to "say" who was voted for.

That's why the UN has observers whose duty it is to watch elections. But I agree that after a putsch people may ask less.

Hugo is seen as hero in most of the slums and even some high class areas here. Right alongside Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

I've met enough people here and in Austria who think so, too. I don't have to, do I?

Right, and the USA having a Government Funded and run organization to monitor and censor/edit all forms of electronic communication is not suppression? The USA imprisoning nearly all Japanese Americans during WWII was not suppression? Or what about Britain brutally exterminating the ethnic people of Australia and North America?

These things happened all the time and will happen furthermore. My grandfather was imprisoned for being a German in Brazil during the war. He died because of bad health care shortly after leaving the camp. It is no nice story, but I see the reasons of controlling potential opponents during a conflict. - But it is a completely different thing to mistreat your own citizens in order to stay in power. Monitoring the electronic communication is a severe intrusion into personal freedom, but in my estimation not comparable to electoral fraud or upkeeping of private militia.

[Ipsissimus]

For the one who needs help, it doesn't matter in the short term. For those who help it does.

we already discussed this controversely, some months ago^^

That's why the UN has observers whose duty it is to watch elections.

a very very vague hope, wouldn´t stress it too much^^

Monitoring the electronic communication is a severe intrusion into personal freedom, but in my estimation not comparable to electoral fraud or upkeeping of private militia.

you really see qualitative differences here? I see working the same spirit which is willing and able to do what is considered to be necessery to remain in power

[smoker6969]

I've met enough people here and in Austria who think so, too. I don't have to, do I?

YES YOU DO

That's why the UN has observers whose duty it is to watch elections.

Right, and the UN which was founded by the USA and the USA being a permanent member is really going to stop them? If I remember correctly, the UN also told the USA they could not invade Iraq...

Monitoring the electronic communication is a severe intrusion into personal freedom, but in my estimation not comparable to electoral fraud or upkeeping of private militia.

you really see qualitative differences here? I see working the same spirit which is willing and able to do what is considered to be necessery to remain in power

Thanks, because I don't see a difference either... I guess top secrete US prisons are also necessary? And I guess threating dissidents with the death penalty is also necessary for freedom?

[janw]

Freedom? What freedom? Their is no "true" freedom anywhere. The USA calls it's self land of the free, yet 1% of the population is in prison. Land of the free, but you still can't do what you want,...

They only have a different meaning of freedom^^ To them freedom wouldn't be worth anything if it wasn't to be had for money, and so freedom is for those who can afford it.

Chavez system is certainly not one of violence and suppression.

One point in which Lykurg is right is his pointing out that Chavez' electional success was accompanied by a mob of fans performing violence upon oppositional groups and putting pressure on people to vote for Hugo.
The question remaining for me is if this was really necessary to gain the success and if violence in such or a similar manner is not possibly a usual part of the political game in Venezuela, only on different parts of the people.
Also, one doesn't have to be happy about Chavez' support for Castro who is quite an unpleasant dictator.
I am not quite sure about what Che would think about him...

So I dont think Putin to be a counterpart to American imperialism. In fact he strives for a (old) new Russian imperialism with a new crew of main supporters, the new Russians. And he probably will succeed because he clearly understood economy to be the way to power.

*Nod* And everything's alright in terms of the neoliberal model of freedom meaning mainly freedom of enterprise and of capital transfer^^

You completely ignored private helps. While in Venezuela possibly very few people could help much, there are lots of private donors and help organisations in the USA. They don't expect their country to do this. I wish it was the same here - I don't want the government to spend my taxes on things they were not collected to pay. The German government gave a huge amount of money to help after the Indonesian Tsunami - and I was ashamed of that. It is wonderful if people voluntarily spend money to help others. But if the government uses the people's money to show off with pompous gestures, it is a terrible abuse of their own citizens, of other countries and of the victims!

Private donorship in usa is certainly one of the better features of the country, but I cannot help being very glad not having to depend on the good will of private persons or organizations to help me to get an expensive medical treatment my life and welfare might depend on. To me it is a shame how governmental organizations dealt with the hurrican disaster in Lousiana leaving people to themselves in ramshackle refuge camps spread all over the country.
In the same way I regard solidarity in case of disaster an important feature of international relationship. Take the tsunami disaster - private donorship in Germany would have been much less if no tourist resorts would have been destroyed and if it hadn't happened at christmas.
Apart from that, Lykurg, german governmental help mainly consisted in sending relief equipment, catastrophy relief personnel and know how to deal with the disaster - worth the amount of money stated, and some additional monetary and infrastructural help from the ministry for development aid.
It was this infrastructural aid and know how that helped, which couldn't have been set up from privately donated money, at least not in the time required.
Am I wrong remembering that Germany was not the only European country delivering help in this case of disaster? Of course one can dispute the way in which the governmental action was displayed in the media.
As for the total amount of money's worth in aid, some years ago it was put on agenda to raise german development aid to a level of 0.7 % of the iirc annual total social product - it still remains well below.
But, well, of course I could do without German forces spending German tax payer's money on participating in an illegal military operation (Operation Enduring Freedom) in a remote mountain country.

[quote="Maglor"]Ansonsten ist doch der jetzige Karierre-Schritt Putins vollkommen unbedenklich... In der Russischen Föderation wird sich dadurch nichts ändern, im Gegenteil. ]
Sicher, die Freiheit der Habenden zur weiteren Mehrung des Habens wird bestehen bleiben. Das ist die Freiheit, die die WiWis meinen^^

[Maglor]

Sicher, die Freiheit der Habenden zur weiteren Mehrung des Habens wird bestehen bleiben. Das ist die Freiheit, die die WiWis meinen^^

Welch üble Unterstellung, die Politik Putins bedeutet doch keine freie Marktwirtschaft sondern Freiheit für niemanden. Ist es nicht so, dass Putin die Habenden, die sich zu wichtig nehmen, einsperren läßt und ihr Kapital zurück zu Vater Staat und Mutter Heimat führt. Ich weiß nicht, was das mit neoliberaler Ideologie zu tun.
Überhaupt wozu denn Ideologien??? Mythen sind doch viel besser. Putin, der starke Mann des großen Russlands, der Flugzeuge selbst steuert, in Zungen spricht und überhaupt alles kann, was ein Führer können muss, in Nachfolge von Peter dem Großen und Genosse Stalin, der mit Leichtigkeit orthodoxe Rythen und sowjetische Folklore verbindet...
MfG Maglor

[Ipsissimus]

Maglor, freie Marktwirtschaft bedeutet auch keine freie Marktwirtschaft^^