The results of Russia's parliamentary elections ought to come as no shock. In spite of the huge accretion of power which they have handed to President Vladimir Putin, they also contain more good news than bad.
Stark though these judgments may sound, especially in the face of the hand-wringing tone of most official western reactions to the Dec. 7 vote, they rest on the basis of historical evidence.
First, the no-shock issue. Low turnouts, a lack of debate, unfair use of the state-controlled media, heavy intervention by oligarchs in the funding process, and "virtual" parties which have no members or branches and offer voters empty slogans rather than detailed programs -- these have been characteristic of Russian politics for almost a decade.
In every Duma election since the collapse of the one-party state, the Kremlin has used "administrative resources" to promote its favorites (and in some cases to destroy them later, as with the one-time Afghan war hero General Alexander Lebed). The power of incumbency has been used ruthlessly to raise obstacles for potential challengers. TV and radio stations have manipulated public debate by saturating the airwaves with commentators who blatantly support the central government.
It has been a miserable process, especially after the hopes that accompanied the arrival of open political competition towards the end of the Gorbachev era. In 1993 when then-president Boris Yeltsin broke the Constitution by suspending parliament and writing a new constitution which reduced member of parliament's powers, a handful of Moscow-based reporters and western commentators denounced it as the start of a slippery slope.
They have now been vindicated. We argued then that this was a kind of "market Bolshevism," designed to push through neo-liberal economic policies in the face of opposition not only in parliament but in the Russian public at large, at a time when gradual reform rather than wild revolution in both politics and the economy was necessary and possible.
The disputes between president and parliament in the first post-Soviet years were not a recipe for paralysis, as was claimed. They were the inevitable discomforts inherent in developing democratic compromises and a system of checks and balances that Russia had never had in its history. But leading western governments supported the strong-hand concept, falling for and in some cases promoting the false argument that there was an imminent danger of a return to power of Soviet-style communism if Yeltsin did not strike first.
The much more real danger, which subsequently became reality, was that a return to excessive power in the Kremlin and hardline economic reforms would impoverish huge numbers of Russians and discredit the process of democratic change. One reason for the collapse of the Union of Right Forces in the Dec. 7 poll was the fierce unpopularity of Anatoly Chubais, the party's grey cardinal, who drove the neo-liberal privatization of the early 1990s.
The Russian Communist party may be a linear descendant of the party of Lenin, but by 1993 it had become an amalgam of authoritarian nationalists and statists, with a few social democrats hidden in its midst. It retained a strong local organization and had a certain nostalgic appeal for many Russians, but offered few ideas for change.
Since its high point in 1996 -- when its presidential candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, took 40 percent of the vote -- the party has been in decline. Yeltsin began to steal some of its clothes with his use of nationalist symbols, but Putin has gone further in combining the Communist party's post-1991 nostalgia for order and discipline with its pre-Gorbachevian tradition of bureaucratic authoritarianism.
In this election he stole some of its leftist populism by making a carefully calculated attack on a few selected oligarchs. This clearly took votes away from the communists, even though Putin himself is not only a friend of the oligarchs but their creature. It was the alliance of Yeltsin and the oligarchs, including the Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, who chose Putin as Yeltsin's successor.
In advance of this election, the communists adopted the Kremlin's own cynicism. It literally sold places on its national and regional lists to millionaire oligarchs who, if elected, gain immunity from arrest and prosecution. Eleven of the top 18 people on the lists were not even party members, and five were linked to the oil giant Yukos, whose founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky is still in prison pending trial.
If western observers such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe now denounce the election as a step backward in Russia's eventual transition to democracy, the pity is that they did not do it when the European Institute for the Media was saying the same thing several years ago. In 1996 the West turned a blind eye to Yeltsin's electoral manipulations because they liked the result.
The hope is that this time they are not criticizing the election for similar reasons of expediency -- the defeat of the Union of Right Forces and Grigory Yavlinsky's Yabloko party.
The good news in the election is that it may lead to a realignment of Russian parties in the long term. The Communist party has split, not before time, with the creation of the new party -- Rodina, or Motherland -- which opposes neo-liberal economics. Although the party's formation owes much to the Kremlin, which wanted to break the communists apart, Rodina contains forces within it which could develop a genuinely independent and social democratic identity.
Sergei Glaziev, its leader, is one of the brightest progressive economists in Russia. His alliance with the ultra-nationalist Dmitri Rogozin and an authoritarian former general helped him to get votes, but it ought not to last long. The communists may split further now that they see Rodina's success.
This year's election gives a chance for a complete reshuffling of the pack of political cards. The process will be long and hard, and it may lead nowhere. So many Russians have been turned off politics by the events of the past decade. So many are struggling to survive in conditions of economic hardship. Cynicism and apathy prevail, as people see the privileges and perks that go with being a member of parliament and the interpenetration of government and parliament by narrow-minded business interests.
A realignment of Russia's political scene is long overdue. It will not happen overnight, but after the Dec. 7 poll the chances that it could develop over the next few wilderness years are marginally better than at any time since the Yeltsin coup of 1993.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.