So, this seems like them acquiescing to Putin's proposed reforms? I was confused at first as these mass resignations are usually done in protest. Here it looks like it was done to give Putin...
So, this seems like them acquiescing to Putin's proposed reforms? I was confused at first as these mass resignations are usually done in protest. Here it looks like it was done to give Putin needed leeway to institute these reforms.
I'm honestly curious - what will Russia do when Putin is no longer? He will likely hold power until the day he dies, but what then? Has he been grooming a successor?
I get a sense we're going to see the extent of the plan within the next few months. Right now only the tip of the iceberg is above the horizon. As we move forward, details will become clearer.
I get a sense we're going to see the extent of the plan within the next few months. Right now only the tip of the iceberg is above the horizon. As we move forward, details will become clearer.
This brief stub of an article doesn't include some of the detail I saw elsewhere. For example, the BBC says: This sounds like a move towards more democracy, which is a good thing. It also sounds...
This brief stub of an article doesn't include some of the detail I saw elsewhere.
Constitutional reforms included giving the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, "greater responsibility" for the appointment of the prime minister and the cabinet.
Currently, the president appoints the prime minister, and the Duma approves the decision.
This sounds like a move towards more democracy, which is a good thing. It also sounds like a way for a (hypothetical) popular person to get himself elected to the Prime Ministership if he happens to be constitutionally excluded from being President yet again (hypothetically).
Oh, and:
Other measures include:
Limiting the supremacy of international law
Amending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms
Strengthening laws that prohibit presidential candidates who have held foreign citizenship or foreign residency permits
Maybe our hypothetical President won't be constitutionally excluded from continuing to be President.
I'm reminded of the time when Gaius Julius Caesar convinced the Roman Senate to vote him in as dictator perpetuus ("dictator forever"), or when Adolf Hitler convinced the German Reichstag to pass the Ermächtigungsgesetz ("Enabling Act") giving his cabinet the power to pass laws unilaterally. Putin is finding a seemingly constitutional way to make himself a dictator for life.
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment... You're making it seem as if Vladimir Putin must ever be cautious about a power grab. His Southern ally, Xi Jinping, has recently become president for...
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...
You're making it seem as if Vladimir Putin must ever be cautious about a power grab. His Southern ally, Xi Jinping, has recently become president for life. Alexander Lukashenko, his Eastern sort-of-ally has been the only president of Belarus in the whole history of the independent country:
1st President of Belarus
Assumed office: 20 July 1994
Preceded by: Office established
From what I'm aware of in Russian politics, even minding the discontent, there seems to be no reason Putin can't just declare indefinite presidential terms. The protests that would inevitably follow will not reported on in-country, and any other manifestation of discontent would be swept under the rug under the pretense of "Western politicking and anti-Russian (non-patriotic) attitude".
I agree: Putin doesn't have to go through the motions if he wants to be dictator for life. But he has gone through those motions over the past couple of decades. Every move he's made has been...
I agree: Putin doesn't have to go through the motions if he wants to be dictator for life. But he has gone through those motions over the past couple of decades. Every move he's made has been within the letter of the law (if not the spirit of that law). And it looks like he's continuing that practice now.
If things don't go his way, maybe he'll be more blatant about his desire to hold on to power. But, for now, he seems to be trying to be legal about it.
My question is: to what end is that keeping with the law? The answer might be in the fact that a not-insignificant portion of Russians are questioning the legitimacy of his presidency. It stems...
My question is: to what end is that keeping with the law?
The answer might be in the fact that a not-insignificant portion of Russians are questioning the legitimacy of his presidency. It stems from the fact that the last few presidential elections have been blatantly-flawed in ways that defy assuming any sort of good faith on Putin's behalf. Reported voter turnout has been so high it breaches into metaphysics. (That photo is from one of the major, state-wide news channels.) Or, how about accruing 117% of votes? (By the way, Algernon: The Shovel – good newspaper, bad, The Onion?)
What I'm wondering is: if you're okay with such blatant, bold, strongman-type tactics to maintain your position, why would you not be okay with just taking it? Xi Jinping's done it just fine – for all intents and purposes, neither Russia nor China have ever had a democracy, and having a "strong leader" is all but praised – yet Putin's afraid to make the same move.
I wonder if part of it is, despite his demonising of "the West" to the populace for political ends, Putin really wants to be part of that club. He wants to be seen as legitimate, rather than the...
I wonder if part of it is, despite his demonising of "the West" to the populace for political ends, Putin really wants to be part of that club. He wants to be seen as legitimate, rather than the tin-pot dictator he really is.
So, this seems like them acquiescing to Putin's proposed reforms? I was confused at first as these mass resignations are usually done in protest. Here it looks like it was done to give Putin needed leeway to institute these reforms.
I'm honestly curious - what will Russia do when Putin is no longer? He will likely hold power until the day he dies, but what then? Has he been grooming a successor?
I've already pretty much covered this question in my other response. In short, Medvedev will probably follow Putin, and then only god knows.
I don't even know what the fuck is going on any more.
I get a sense we're going to see the extent of the plan within the next few months. Right now only the tip of the iceberg is above the horizon. As we move forward, details will become clearer.
This brief stub of an article doesn't include some of the detail I saw elsewhere.
For example, the BBC says:
This sounds like a move towards more democracy, which is a good thing. It also sounds like a way for a (hypothetical) popular person to get himself elected to the Prime Ministership if he happens to be constitutionally excluded from being President yet again (hypothetically).
Oh, and:
Maybe our hypothetical President won't be constitutionally excluded from continuing to be President.
I'm reminded of the time when Gaius Julius Caesar convinced the Roman Senate to vote him in as dictator perpetuus ("dictator forever"), or when Adolf Hitler convinced the German Reichstag to pass the Ermächtigungsgesetz ("Enabling Act") giving his cabinet the power to pass laws unilaterally. Putin is finding a seemingly constitutional way to make himself a dictator for life.
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...
You're making it seem as if Vladimir Putin must ever be cautious about a power grab. His Southern ally, Xi Jinping, has recently become president for life. Alexander Lukashenko, his Eastern sort-of-ally has been the only president of Belarus in the whole history of the independent country:
From what I'm aware of in Russian politics, even minding the discontent, there seems to be no reason Putin can't just declare indefinite presidential terms. The protests that would inevitably follow will not reported on in-country, and any other manifestation of discontent would be swept under the rug under the pretense of "Western politicking and anti-Russian (non-patriotic) attitude".
I agree: Putin doesn't have to go through the motions if he wants to be dictator for life. But he has gone through those motions over the past couple of decades. Every move he's made has been within the letter of the law (if not the spirit of that law). And it looks like he's continuing that practice now.
If things don't go his way, maybe he'll be more blatant about his desire to hold on to power. But, for now, he seems to be trying to be legal about it.
My question is: to what end is that keeping with the law?
The answer might be in the fact that a not-insignificant portion of Russians are questioning the legitimacy of his presidency. It stems from the fact that the last few presidential elections have been blatantly-flawed in ways that defy assuming any sort of good faith on Putin's behalf. Reported voter turnout has been so high it breaches into metaphysics. (That photo is from one of the major, state-wide news channels.) Or, how about accruing 117% of votes? (By the way, Algernon: The Shovel – good newspaper, bad, The Onion?)
What I'm wondering is: if you're okay with such blatant, bold, strongman-type tactics to maintain your position, why would you not be okay with just taking it? Xi Jinping's done it just fine – for all intents and purposes, neither Russia nor China have ever had a democracy, and having a "strong leader" is all but praised – yet Putin's afraid to make the same move.
I wonder if part of it is, despite his demonising of "the West" to the populace for political ends, Putin really wants to be part of that club. He wants to be seen as legitimate, rather than the tin-pot dictator he really is.