December 9, 2003
RUSSIAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: 'FREE BUT NOT FAIR'
** While the Russian
elections were free, media bias and state support made them unfair.
** As a result of the
election the Duma lacks an effective opposition.
** The election proves the
difficulty of reconciling Russia's autocratic tradition with democracy.
** Putin has gained
near-total control of the government and has been given "carte
A bias towards pro-Kremlin parties in state-controlled media
ensured their victory-- Euro writers
expressed concern over Russia's elections.
According to Hungary's leading Nepszabadsag: "In normal democracies the rules of an
election are clear, not the results. In
Russia the case is just the opposite."
Belgium's independent La Libre Belgique saw Putin "abusing
the Russian State’s means to put down the opposition."
Euro and Japanese writers saw cause for concern in the lack of an
effective opposition-- With no opposition
capable of affecting policy, the Duma could become a rubber-stamp for the
Kremlin. Japan's business-oriented Nihon
Keizai stated the results "signify a retreat from Russia's democratic
reforms." Likewise, Russia's
Reformist Izvestiya editorialized, "In the next four years, there
will be no coherent political opposition in the Duma to the executive power.
The election implied that Russians prefer an 'elected autocrat' to
a democracy-- Analysts fear that Russia's autocratic past
could harm its democratic future.
Russia's business-oriented Vedomosti asserted, "Russia,
after fair and democratic elections in December of 2003, legitimately rejected
democracy in favor of an updated authoritarian Soviet-type regime." Munich's center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung
added, “Russia voted--for Putin and his only barely democratic authoritarian
state and against the weakly rooted western form of democracy."
Analysts see Putin as having a free hand, and foresee an attempt
to stay in power longer-- With an outright
majority in the Duma, Putin may attempt to modify the Constitution to serve
more than two terms. Austria's centrist Die
Presse noted, "Putin will be able to perfect his 'managed democracy’
even further, for instance by amending the constitution in order to be able to
run for office for the third time."
Putin also has more freedom of maneuver on other issues according to
outlets such as Russia's reformist Vremya Novostey, which held: "The Kremlin has gained practically
boundless power in Parliament."
India's pro-BJP right-of-center Pioneer opined, "While the
U.S. desperately searches for legitimacy for its war against terror...Russia
does not have to look over its shoulder to take the war into the terror
camps," and urged Putin to "crack down hard" on Chechen
EDITOR: James Deacon
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 46 reports from 17 countries, from 7-9 December. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
RUSSIA: "A New
Svetlana Babayeva said in reformist Izvestiya (12/9): "What we got is a new type of
monarchy. The 'power vertical' is nearly
complete, with docile regions, non-opposition media, tamed political parties,
and an almost totally controlled Duma.
Western commentators say that now President Putin is free to carry out
his reformist policy. The question is
how manageable is manageable democracy.
As far as the controlled Duma is concerned, the Kremlin 'founding
fathers' achieved what they were after.
It took them three years to do it.
The aim was to secure a 'constitutional majority' in the Duma. Mission accomplished, anything can be
attempted, including amending the Constitution.... Basically, the resounding defeat of the Right
has changed nothing--they were in a critical situation even before December
7. But the vote outcome robbed them of
an important forum in which to voice an opinion or take action.... Rodina (Motherland), reared by the Kremlin's
'political technologists,' has proved to be more than thought originally. Within a few weeks it was on its own,
stealing votes from parties it was not supposed to steal from, its Take Away
and Divide slogan too damned popular in this country."
"Does Vote Give The Kremlin A Carte Blanche?"
Vladimir Shpak commented in reformist Vremya Novostey (12/9): "The Kremlin has gained practically
boundless power in parliament. An
absolute majority in the Duma enables it to engage actively in lawmaking,
including amending the Constitution.
Making amendments, even reasonable ones, may well have an unexpected
follow-up. Once you start doing that you
may not want to stop.... People from
'power structures' in the Putin administration, without a doubt, will tend to
interpret the election outcome as a carte blanche to tighten screws and bring
more pressure to bear on big capital and, coming under fire from liberals, they
will invariably refer to the people's will.
They will argue that the people hate oligarchs, want their property
divided, and support a more rigid policy toward the West and NIS
countries. In short, the people want the
empire back.... It looks like the
President, some members of his administration, and the current Cabinet are the
only advocates of right-wing liberal ideas in the federal government and have
no allies in parliament."
"Decline Of Democracy"
Olga Kryshtanovskaya contended in business-oriented Vedomosti
(12/9): "Democrats have left
parliament and there is little chance that they will return in four years. No political party in Russia has ever
survived four years of being away from power.
There are no political parties in Russia other than those in
parliament. Once a political party
fails in elections it falls apart.... In
the time before the elections democratic leaders did not defend democracy in
Russia. Nor did they defend journalists,
businesspeople and intellectuals. Their
electorate was waiting for resolute actions and clear assessments, but getting
none, it felt betrayed and refused to vote....
The elections have dispelled a myth about the Communists as a growing
party with a strong appeal to young people.
In fact, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is aging, and
Gennadiy Zyuganov is possibly its last leader.... Rumors about a Frankenstein who may get out
of the Kremlin's control don't have a leg to stand on. Rogozin, Glazyev, and Semigin [the leaders of
the Rodina bloc] are quite pragmatic and realize that in today's Russia,
showing disloyalty to the Kremlin will ruin their careers.... The long and the short of it is that Russia,
after fair and democratic elections in December of 2003, legitimately rejected
democracy in favor of an updated authoritarian Soviet-type regime."
"The Khodorkovskiy Referendum"
Anatoliy Kostyukov stated in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(12/9): "What we had last Sunday
was a national referendum on the Khodorkovskiy case disguised as elections to
the Duma. For correctness' sake, it
might be called a referendum on Putin vs. the Oligarchs, which is virtually the
same. Obviously, the presidential
administration, which was in control, was acting quite skillfully, having
political parties speak of their attitude toward President Putin and the action
against Yukos. Attempts to draw
attention to other problems like housing, army reform, poverty, and the threat
of fascism failed. No political party
has enough administrative and information resources to refuse the scenario that
was offered by the Kremlin. In the
upshot, the December 7 vote had the participants lined up strictly in
conformity with the roles they played in the Kremlin-staged show."
"Democrats Left Ashore"
Vadim Poegli wrote in reformist youth-oriented Moskovskiy
Komsomolets (12/9): "Small
wonder that the Right missed the Duma.
How would you explain to a medical doctor, high school teacher or
engineer with an annual income of $1,500 why an oligarch takes just as long to
make $1.5 billion? Is it because an
oligarch is a million times smarter, more educated, and works harder? Ironically, the Kremlin-nurtured Rodina is
more effective than the Right in upholding the interests of small and
medium-size business. To learn to
distinguish between the interests of Khodorkovskiy and those of the owner of a
small car repair shop is the task for the Right in the next four years. A constitutional majority in parliament is
something that is new in this country and therefore a little dangerous. Feeling free to make good laws and even amend
the Constitution is very tempting. But
the 'power party' must realize that it has to bear full responsibility for
whatever it does in the next four years.
Another restraining factor for the Kremlin is last Sunday's
turnout. Less than 50% of eligible
voters appeared at the polling stations and 5.5% voted against all candidates. That attests to manageable democracy being
manageable only to a certain extent."
"Power Party Wins Its First Elections"
Liliya Shevtsova commented in official government-run Rossiyskaya
Gazeta (12/8): "Many Russians
see Yedinaya Rossiya (United Russia) as part of a state machine designed to
attach 'democratic legitimacy' to the powers that be. They believe that Yedinaya Rossiya can
quickly solve their problems with pensions, fresh water supply, and
heating. It sounds like voting for an
effective building superintendent. In
the new Duma, Yedinaya Rossiya will become a hostage of its 'system role,'
destined to rubber-stamp the government's decisions. Now the Kremlin, its position fortified,
won't have to waste time on cajolery--all it will have to do is give orders,
with Yedinaya Rossiya now obliged to bear responsibility for whatever the
government fails to do. President Putin,
bound to quit in 2008, will hardly want to change the Constitution. This means that he will soon have to start
looking for a successor. That may split
the political class, and Yedinaya Rossiya would have to take sides. Its members will have to wrack their brains
anyway, since the Kremlin will never be monolithic, even after Yeltsin's
remaining loyalists are gone. But that
is not all. Any new leader, even if he
or she hails from the ruling team, will have to think of his/her own legitimacy
and so will want to break with the past, including Putin's Yedinaya
Rossiya. This is the way things work in
"President Wins Duma's Controlling Interest"
Reformist Izvestiya editorialized (12/8): "Yedinaya Rossiya's is the most
convincing victory of all won by 'power parties' in post-Soviet history. The Communists suffered their worst defeat,
having lost nearly half their votes since 1999.
The nationalists [Zhirinovskiy's Liberal Democratic Party] gained a lot
of ground, and the just-formed Rodina came up to its architects' expectations,
having robbed the Communists of a portion of their electorate. The rightists' fiasco was predictable. The chief result of the elections is that
Yedinaya Rossiya with loyalists can hope to win two thirds of the seats in the
State Duma and feel free to pursue any policy, as long as the Kremlin approves
it. In the next four years, there will
be no coherent political opposition in the Duma to the executive power. But with the Communists upstaged and the
Kasyanov cabinet replaced with another one, the Kremlin will have no one to
blame for its failures and errors. The
Duma will turn into an even more manageable law-making agency and may even attempt
to adjust the Constitution, if instructed."
"What We Expect From The New Duma"
Business-oriented Vedomosti stated (12/8): "It is essential that the Duma does not
degrade Russia to an authoritarian regime a la Lukashenko or Niyazov. Byelorussia and Turkmenistan have parliaments
and presidents, too, but they only need those democratic attributes to
camouflage their leaders' absolute power.
This is why we are expecting the Duma to work for the maintenance and
development of democracy in Russia, including freedom of the press, independent
courts, and control over government."
"Good Morning, Russia!"
Vladimir Fedorin said in business-oriented Vedomosti
(12/8): "The absence of the Union
of Right Forces in the State Duma is a very serious blow to the myth of
Anatoliy Chubais's superefficiency. The
problem with Chubais is that he is politically active only during elections but
is kind of squeamish in between, according to Leonid Nevzlin, Yukos's co-owner
in exile. The same is true of all of big
business. Oligarchs slept through the
past four years, thinking that dealing with the Kremlin individually would cost
them less than investing in civil society.
Good morning, Russia!"
"Choosing Between Chavez And Milosevic"
Viktor Shenderovich charged in reformist Gazeta
(12/8): "Many of those who have all
these months been fighting for power are criminals. In a country where millions vote for Rogozin
and Zhirinovskiy, you can't feel safe in the street. In a country where tens of million--after
what has been done to their fathers and grandfathers--vote for the Communists,
you can do anything on a national scale.
Voting with humility for Gryzlov and Co. bespeaks total hopelessness and
indifference. Our Right-wingers cut the
saddest figures.... This poll can
roughly be compared to choosing between Chavez and Milosevic."
The conservative Times editorialized (12/9): "Russia likes the idea of being a puzzle
within a riddle wrapped in an enigma, but the results of its weekend parliamentary
elections were abundantly clear. The
winners were the three parties that pragmatically put loyalty to the Kremlin,
and President Putin, above all else....
Yet most Russians apparently do not object to the outcome.... The authoritarian sentiment exposed by the
elections may shock the West: but, unfortunately, it springs straight from
Russia's grass roots."
"Russia Will Pay A High Price For Putin's Success"
An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph read
(12/9): "The result of Russia's
parliamentary election is a vote for conservatism. After the roller coaster years under Boris
Yeltsin, which saw the collapse of the Soviet Union followed by wholesale
privatisation of a command economy, Vladimir Putin's offer of a strong, united,
stable country has paid handsome dividends....
In the president's eyes, Russia's route to great power status lies
through managed democracy.... For the
West, Mr. Putin's continued commitment to economic reform and further
integration of Russia into international markets will be encouraging. However, a country gaining strength with the
aid of foreign trade and investment will not necessarily prove a more pliable
partner.... The electorate, or at any
rate the half of it that bothered to vote, has played safe. But its conservatism comes at a cost, both at
home and abroad."
Laure Mandeville declared in right-of-center Le Figaro
(12/9): "A historic page was turned
in Russia as every form of opposition worthy of that name was erased.... In Moscow, the time has come for total
loyalty to the Czar.... No one should
forget that unlimited power almost always turns leaders into tyrants.... The return of coercive methods is back in
Russia. Opponents are squashed and
bothersome businessmen are imprisoned....
The signs are sufficiently worrisome that analysts are seeing an
imperialistic trend.... The trend is all
the more dangerous that the West was as spineless as the Duma when it came to
opposing Putin.... The OSCE and Washington
have just barely woken up."
"The Russian Mystery"
Charles Lambroschini held in right-of-center Le
Figaro (12/9): "To his domestic
successes Putin can add a series of international achievements. He has become the West's ally in the war
against terrorism. He is a NATO partner
as well as a partner of the EU.
President Bush has even forgiven him for his alliance with France in the
Iraqi crisis. The end result is that
neither Washington nor Europe has made any comment about Sunday's
results.... In Putin's defense there is
the fact that traditional democracy may not be adaptable to Russia. Hence this synthesis between West and East
that Putin personifies: an elected
Jean-Michel Helvig opined in left-of-center Liberation
(12/8): “What the Duma possessed in
terms of political openness will be drastically reduced in favor of Putin’s
party, which has progressed thanks to a wave of national populism.... In Russia there was no election campaign,
instead there was lots of propaganda from Putin’s Unified Russian party.... Since Brezhnev this is the first time so much
power has been concentrated in the hands of a single person.... But in spite of this glacial political trend,
a Russian civil society is emerging. What yesterday’s elections remind us of is
that democratization is neither irreversible nor irresistible. Neither is it an
affair of constitution or military invasion. Democratization is something that
has to do with the evolution of mentalities....
In our contemporary societies (democracy) is something that keeps
turning up like a tenacious virus.”
Francoise Crouigneau wrote in economic-oriented right-of-center Les
Echos (12/8): “The Russian
legislatives are a key step towards the next curtain call: the Russian presidential election.... On the international scene Putin has managed
to give Russia new international luster....
So much so that he has helped Russia forget the humiliation of having
lost its position as a world power....
But the battles that will go on behind the scene until March will
determine not only Putin’s future but the future of Russia and its credibility.”
GERMANY: "Divide and
Christoph von Marshall commented in an editorial in Tagesspiegel
(12/9): "The sad picture is
complemented by the failure of the democratic forces. They missed moving into the Duma because
their leaders care more about their vanity than about the common interests of a
liberal society.... The reform movement
never became a factor, which cannot be overlooked. The West made its peace with supporting a
development dictatorship. The West
preferred an enlightened autocracy, rather than have the Communists or the
nationalist party win in truly free elections.... The West did not mind when the President
became more and more powerful and the Duma became weaker and weaker. How can this process be turned around? How can a parliament completely dependent on
the Kremlin become more independent? It
is about high time that Germany listened to the lessons learned during the
Yeltsin period--helping Putin is not the issue--it is helping Russia become a
"The Majority is Practicing Humility"
Klaus-Helge Donath opined in an editorial in Tageszeitung
(12/9): “Russia is tired--that is the
main message of the Duma elections. Now
what was built up in a painful process during the years of democratic upswing
is endangered. The overwhelming approval
for the nationalistic parties proves that Russians do not care much for
experimenting with freedom, self-determination and the rule of law. Instead they prefer what they have called
their 'special way' for the past two centuries.
The West calls it a different way--authoritarian state.... The passive part of Russian society left its
mark at this election. A thousand years
of authoritarian rule cannot be overcome in a decade. But Russia is not lost; a lot is happening below the political and
institutional level. The failure of the
reform parties will lead to a flow of experienced politicians into civil
society outside parliament.”
"All Power For the Kremlin"
Tomas Avenarius of national daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung
commented (12/9): “Russia voted--for
Putin and his only barely democratic authoritarian state and against the weakly
rooted western form of democracy. Only
what the Kremlin allows will be allowed in the future. And what about the economy? Putin’s key project. The pressure on the business community will
increase if their deals disturb those of the government. There will also be a step-by-step distancing
from the West. The new Russia wants to
pursue its foreign policy interests independently. Not right now though, because Putin is
focusing first on internal reform. As it
looks right now, he will have time for the new foreign policy. It can still be implemented after the 2004
Presidential election or the 2008 elections."
ITALY: "The Democratic
Czar And A Precariously Placed Country"
Franco Venturini stated in centrist, top-circulation Corriere
della Sera (12/8): “The elections
for the Duma had become a referendum on his presidency and Vladimir Putin won
it by a landslide.... The communists had
to be drained of their blood by a satellite formation which was erected in a
few months to attract the suffrages of national-nostalgics, and the PCFR got
its first whipping since the USSR era....
But if the incomplete results [of the elections] leaves a margin of
uncertainty, the fundamental verdict that came out of the polls leaves no room
for doubt: after four years in office, Putin has succeeded in transforming his
strong popularity into votes.... Now the
road will be easy for him.... Seen in
this light, yesterday’s elections give rise to an unavoidable question: are we witnessing the progress of a young
democracy or the progressive affirmation of a regime?.... The head of the Kremlin is an iron
pragmatist, who puts to use the determination he learned from the KGB and a
realistic and ambitious vision of Russia’s role in the world for his
purposes.... In short, Putin’s Russia
knows about politics. And his re-found
role will benefit everyone, especially since he is accompanied by a strong
domestic economic growth.... Vladimir
Putin will be put to the test by a reformism that will not be exhausted in
authoritarianism. And the West must have
a clear word for this precarious Russia."
"Russia, The Strength Of The Nationalists"
Leading business-oriented Il Sole-24 Ore
opined (12/9): “The oddities of an
imperfect democracy: the new Duma, the
Parliament which held its legislative elections on Sunday, is dominated by a
party that has no agenda, no history, that has extras as leaders, that doesn’t
demonstrate in the streets and doesn’t want journalists walking around on
victory night. [This is] a party that
did not participate in televised debates during the electoral campaign, and yet
the audience proclaimed it the winner.
No party...had ever obtained so much support from its constituents and
so much influence among the deputies of this strange creature, ‘United Russia,’
of this shadow of Putin.... And yet
these elections did not lack shadows:
the strengthening of the nationalists served as a counterweight to the
apparent crisis of the communists; the
fall of the democrats was countered by the entry into the scene of the ‘Rodina’
(Homeland) Party.... What is alarming in
Russia at the moment is the simultaneous presence of a nationalist Duma and a
Kremlin in which there is a growing influence of statesman. Until now Putin has had control over all of
them, and as of today he is the most respected available face. We cannot but count on him.”
"A Distorted Vote In Russia"
Leonardo Coen maintained in left-leaning, influential La
Repubblica (12/9): “Free but
distorted. Free but incorrect. Free but unfair. The elections were far from the European and
international criteria that characterize the elections in every democratic
country.... The Russian elections were
strongly criticized not only from a technical point of view but also from a
substantial political point of view.
Even the White House of the friend Bush distanced itself [from the
"Washington Critical of Russian Election--'Unfair Vote'"
Maurizio Molinari noted in centrist, influential daily La
Stampa (12/9): “The OSCE defined the
elections in Russia as ‘free but unfair’, giving way to a bitter sparring match
between Bush and Putin.... To point its
finger at the unfairness of the campaign on the part of Washington means
accepting the protests that came from various humanitarian agencies and NGOs,
pressing Moscow on the human rights front.
This is almost a warning in view of the presidential elections in March,
which Putin will run in.... Behind the
verbal match is the growing bilateral tension after the arrest of the Russian
oil magnate...and which continued with Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech
in Maastricht last week before the OSCE ministers.... The Iraqi game is complicating bilateral
relations which is now being played on the table for the debt shake-up.... Bush’s nomination of former Secretary of
State James Baker as his ‘envoy for Iraqi debt’ makes it clear that Bush wants
to come to a rapid agreement, but Putin is not in as much of a hurry, and
objects that the lack of international legitimacy of the current Iraqi Council
makes it impossible to begin a discussion on the debt."
Parliament That Putin Wanted"
Burkhard Bischof noted in centrist Die Presse (12/9): “It was probably a feeling of powerlessness
towards this all-powerful Kremlin that caused 44 percent of the electorate to
stay at home on Sunday. 6 percent of
those that did bother to turn up for the election voted ‘against all
candidates’ on their ballot. This can
only mean that half of the Russian electorate does not feel represented at all
by those whose job it would be to represent them. All this did not prevent President Vladimir
Putin from praising the election as another step towards strengthening Russian
democracy. Did his enthusiasm stem from
the fact that, with a two-third majority in Parliament, Putin will be able to
perfect his ‘managed democracy’ even further, for instance by amending the
constitution in order to be able to run for office for the third time in
2008?.... According to the will of the
Russian power league, all negative phenomena in Putin’s Russia should be
blocked out. The picture of Putin, the
great modernizer, must not be besmirched.
However, the long-suffering Russian people have had to put up with many
‘great modernizers’ in the course of their history. Some might say, too many.”
Democratic President Or A New Cesar?"
Pol Mathil declared in left-of-center Le Soir (12/9): "Where is Russia headed? It is said that, on Monday, Russians woke up
in another country. Which country? Actually, after this weekend, there are two
good and one bad news. The first good
news is that, during the long electoral night, the female Labrador of the Putin
family, Konni, gave birth to eight puppies and that the entire family is doing
well. Another good news is that the
Communist Party suffered a severe defeat and that it can theoretically no
longer be an obstacle to reforms. The
bad news is the composition of the new Duma itself. For the first time since the fall of the
Soviet Union, there is no democratic opposition in the Russian
Parliament.... Should one give Putin the
benefit of the doubt? That would be a
considerable risk. At the beginning of
the previous legislature, Putin had promised a 'dictatorship of the law.’ At the end, there is more dictatorship than
law. At the beginning of the second
legislature, Putin promises more democracy.
But according to OSCE observers, Putin is reducing Boris Yeltsin’s
meager democratic legacy. Before the
elections, Putin already had considerable power. Now that the Duma is in support of him, that
the Russian civil society has been politically neutralized, and that the
oligarchs have been brought to heel or sent to jail, Mr. Putin can rule with no
control whatsoever.... And he can now
obtain the required two-third majority to change the Constitution and seek a
third mandate in 2008--something that is currently prohibited. Last Sunday’s elections were not a ballot but
a plebiscite. For a democratic President
or for a new Cesar?”
"One More Step Toward Dictatorship In Russia"
Philippe Paquet held in independent La Libre Belgique
(12/9): “By abusing the Russian State’s
means to put down the opposition, by quelling independent media, and by
selectively enforcing law in business circles, Vladimir Putin is revealing his
KGB origins. Even if this very shrewd
man has understood the Western world’s subtleties and is perfectly using them
to obtain understanding and even complicity from it, it is legitimate for EU
leaders to want to judge the new Russian power on actual evidence and not based
on Putin’s supposed intentions. But when
the time has come, these EU leaders’ reaction will have to be unequivocal if
they want to send the right signal, not only to Russia, but also to the young
democracies from Central and Eastern Europe that will join the EU next spring
as well as to the embryonic democracies that are knocking on the EU’s door.”
Francoise Delstanche editorialized in financial L’Echo
(12/9): “The unprecedented power that
the Russian President received from the ballot offers him a decisive leverage
to increase his grip on the country and to probably change the constitution to
offer himself another Presidential mandate in 2008.... These last months, Putin has constantly
reassured investors by repeating that it is out of the question to come back on
privatizations. He might very well be
sincere.... The real danger comes from
the forceful approach of Putin, who does not seem to have understood the
nuances of a system that is based on the separation of powers and on public
freedoms and who might be tempted by what some are calling ‘liberal
"World Should not Be Lenient With Russia"
Diplomatic correspondent Mia Doornaert argued in independent
Christian-Democrat De Standaard (12/9):
“The outside world is not enhancing democracy in Russia. The democratic countries in North America and
Europe tend to always bet on the strongman--rather than on Russian
society. First, the parole was that we
should support Boris Yeltsin and remain silent about his undemocratic
practices. Today, we hear the same song
about Vladimir Putin--as was demonstrated with the warm reception during his
recent meeting with the EU leaders.
There is little that the outside world can do to exert genuine impact on
that immense and enigmatic country that Russia remains.... However, Russia’s main partners can have some
bearing on developments in Russia by linking minimal conditions regarding human
rights and democracy to their relations and exchanges. Lecturing small countries, but remaining
‘lenient’ with Russia--as was demonstrated by the Council of Europe as well--is
"Czar Vladimir Without Opposition"
Foreign editor Frank Schloemer opined in independent De Morgen
(12/9): “It is no secret that ambitious
‘Czar Vladimir’ is aiming for a third term and that he wants to go on with his
current policy for years. In a
Duma--where the opposition has only 12 percent of the seats--that will be a
simple undertaking for a shrewd politician like Putin. In the meantime, however, the specter of the
one-party state from the past is emerging again in Russia. It will not be in the country’s interest that
the parties in the Kremlin can evade democratic control."
Bolstered By Election Result"
Center-left Politiken editorialized (12/8): "It was Putin, rather than his party
that the people voted for. By giving
Putin such a majority in the Duma, it appears even more unlikely that anyone
will be able to challenge him at the presidential election in March. For those who hope to see the development of
democracy in Russia, there is little reason to be happy about this
"Russia Risks Losing Out Again In The 21st Century"
Center-right Jyllands-Posten commented (12/7): "Russia lost the "20th century
because Russian society could not survive communism. Russia risks losing out again in the 21st
century unless the people can control the power of the state."
HUNGARY: "The President’s
Zoltan Szalay observed in leading Hungarian-language Nepszabadsag
(12/8): "In normal democracies the
rules of an election are clear, not the results. In Russia the case is just the opposite, a
Russian political scientist said. The
bottom line in Russia is that the United Russia Party supports President
Putin. And President Putin supports the
‘Bears’ [as is called the United Russia Party in the Russian slang]. Yesterday’s voting was exactly like the
Russian democracy itself: centrally managed and controlled. And although President Putin is not a
dictator-like character there have still been unfortunately many examples in
Russia’s history when the state became too strong and spilled over into an
autarchy, which meant the law of dictatorship instead of the dictatorship of
"Putin Has A Good Chance to Win"
Liberal Hungarian-language Magyar Hirlap concluded
(12/8): “Will most of the Russians have
a reason to be happy [about the election result], we don’t know yet. But one thing is certain, most of them voted
for the Putin line of Russian politics.
They are not bothered that press freedom is curbed and that the election
was manipulated. But they are
enthusiastic with the strong, centralized power, with the special ‘restoration’
of the Soviet Union. And above all they
are enthusiastic with their President, Vladimir Putin.”
Reject Liberals To Give Putin Almost Total Political Power"
A column by Dan McLoughlin reporting in the center-left daily Irish
Times stated (12/09): "Russians
woke to a new political landscape yesterday after parliamentary elections all
but erased the last vestiges of Mr. Boris Yeltsin's presidency, and removed
lingering barriers to Mr. Vladimir Putin's assumption of almost total political
control.... The liberal protegés of Mr.
Yeltsin were squeezed out of the State Duma....
Some analysts are wondering if Mr. Putin will accept a 2008 limit on his
presidency, or rather use his massive control to alter the fundamentals of a
system constructed by Mr. Yeltsin, the man who ushered him into the Kremlin in
1999. Mr. Putin's team will brush aside
international observers' complaints that media bias corrupted the poll, as it
did criticism of elections in rebel Chechnya this year..... Mr. Putin's pledge to attract foreign capital
and double Gross Domestic Product by 2010 suddenly seemed highly
improbable: he can simplify as many tax
laws and slash as much stifling bureaucracy as he likes, but few investors will
take a risk on Russia if they fear the Kremlin could seize their
assets.... Politics, media and finance
are the three 'verticals of power' that Mr. Putin's critics have long said he
wants to control."
Elections: Old And Boring News"
Violeta Mickeviciute held in second-largest Lithuanian-language Respublika
(12/8): "Last weekend Russia had
parliamentary elections. Democratic,
full-scale, free and recurrent.
Different from 1999, because Russia is different today. More open to the west, run by a well-known
President who fits well with young leaders of the planet. But one cannot look at these elections with
nostalgia, it was more a deja vu. As if
something happening for the second time.
Same promises, same symbols, same TV duels of political opponents. Just like in 1999, no hope to see any
different characters in the government, just the same old team of Vladimir
Putin. And number two--the communists. A couple of weeks and we will see the new era
of the old power. Fellow
comrades-in-arms who have their own opinion will fall, the rich will keep
hiding their capital and children abroad, and Chechnya's painful problems will
not be seen on TV news. Television
channels will keep broadcasting the same old feature films about the
achievements of KGB intelligence officers.
Everything has been repeated, seen and heard."
Choice, Poland’s Choice"
Editor-in-chief Adam Michnik noted in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza
(12/9): “To Poles with their past
experience, Sunday’s elections for the Russian Duma lead to three
conclusions. First, the Russians chose
the parliament they wanted--their choice is their own business. Second, the Russians took a step back on the road
to building democracy.... Third, with
Russia apparently turning toward an imperial ideology, Poles have reasons to
fear--we should seek an even more decisive integration with the West and its
structures, like NATO and the EU. And
the whole of Europe should rethink its policy toward Ukraine and other
"The Duma For Putin"
Slawomir Popowski noted in centrist Rzeczpospolita
(12/8): “There was no surprise. The victory of pro-Putin United Russia in the
parliamentary election is also a manifestation of Putin’s popularity.... One thing is certain: the new Russian parliament will be even more
pro-Kremlin and more obedient than the previous one. The question is what will happen to Russia
now. The answer is not very
comforting.... All the parties running
in the elections shared a number of items in their agendas. First, there was the ‘empire’ as a
slogan. Second, they all had in common
the slogan of ‘Russian revenge.’ The
symbol of a Great Russia rising from its knees was repeated like a mantra, with
accent pun on ‘great,’ not on ‘democratic,’ ‘modern,’ or ‘reforming.’ Finally, none of the parties running for
parliament dared to attack or even strongly criticize the inhabitant of the
Kremlin.... As Victor Yerofeyev, author
of ‘The Encyclopedia of the Russian Soul’ says, Russia, irrespective of
ideology, heads naturally for dictatorship.
The West should abandon any illusions and closely monitor the
developments in the Kremlin. Otherwise
it may be too late.”
Dan Constantin observed in national Jurnalul National
(12/9): “The Sunday elections for the
Duma--the Parliament of Russia, ensures a new term in office for President
Putin, without surprises, in 2004. The
election process itself was democratic, but the future of democracy is not very
certain in the continent-like country....
Russia’s elections, seen from abroad, are analyzed by taking western
standards into account, and are seen as a slide toward a powerful
nationalism.... Criticized or analyzed
without strong conviction, elections in Russia are well appreciated by Putin’s
homologues in the powerful industrialized countries. Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Schroeder, Chirac,
Aznar wish to see in the Kremlin a leader able to maintain stability in
Russia. But democracy is not the main
element of balance for stability in a country of great cultural and economical
contrasts and ethnic diversity.”
Adrian Cochino commented in independent Cotidianul
(12/9): “Participation in political life
is not so important from the technical point of view, but elections in Russia
have a huge practical stake--the way President Putin will present himself in
the presidential elections next year, and the way he will choose to lead the
country up until 2008, when he will have to choose between following Yeltsin’s
path and withdrawing after a decade of being of power, or to keep power, by
hard-to-imagine artificial means.”
"Elections In Russia"
Gabriela Anghel declared in Romania Libera (12/8): “The parliamentary elections are a test for
the Russian President, who will have his term in office at stake three months
from now.... Far from being a democratic
move, the December 7 elections are included, from a strategic point of view, in
the Russian leader’s plan to consolidate his control.”
Left-of-center daily El País wrote (12/9): "Everything was clear before the
legislative elections in Russia, and everything is clear after that. The President, Vladimir Putin, has grown stronger
from the elections that are the final rehearsal of the presidential ones in
March, in which the tenant of the Kremlin will renew his term of office. But the democracy, contrary to what Putin
proclaims, has came off badly after an elections slanted by the massive state
support to the "United Russia" party.... So there is little to celebrate in this
elections...that is on the White House and OSCE's objective. An election in which the manipulated media
are bending over backwards on a party and avoid the rest, and where the
economical resources of the State are only at one political party's disposal,
can't be a clean election for more than they take place at the same way as the
rest of the democratic countries."
Centrist daily La Vanguardia opined (12/9): "Putin now has the political capital
needed for undertaking almost any reform he is determined to make, including
finding an agreed way out of the Chechen conflict. On the economic front, he should make an
effort to establish legal safeguards and clear rules of the game so Russia can
become a reliable partner and the destination for new foreign investment."
SWEDEN: "Division Of
Power Is Nothing For Russia"
Stockholm-based conservative morning-published Svenska
Dagbladet editorialized (12/9):
"President Putin welcomed the election results as great democratic
progress for Russia. From a technical
point of view this is correct; apart
from a few cases of violation of the secrecy of the ballot and errors during
the ballot count, the elections were free.
However, according to OSCE election observers, it was not fair. The candidates of the ruling power were able
to use the resources of the state apparatus.
State controlled media favored President Putin's supporting
troops.... United Russia was able to
fortify its position by promoting a nationalist campaign, including the basic
elements of Putin's political message....
A weak central power in Russia, influenced by competing oligarchs, has now
been replaced by a strong state authority with President Putin as its fixed
star, without a clear-cut difference between the legislative, executive, and
judicial powers. And this is
"Elections With A Projected Result"
Independent, liberal Stockholm-based morning-published Dagens
Nyheter declared (12/9): "The
(Russian) election results were as predicted.
The next Duma will be more faithful to the President than the previous
one. The liberal forces were unable to
reach the (Duma) threshold. The only
opposition party, the Communists, is considerably weakened after being hit hard
by an anti-Communist campaign in state-controlled media.... Although there is an apparent risk that
Russia is moving in the wrong direction...there is little risk that Russia
would return to dictatorship and oppression.
However, tomorrow's Russia might become considerably more authoritarian
Leadership To Be Strengthened"
Business-oriented Nihon Keizai stated (12/9): "As expected, allies of Russian President
Putin won a sweeping victory in Sunday's parliamentary elections. United Russia and other pro-Putin parties
made remarkable gains in the elections, winning two-thirds of the seats in the
State Duma (Lower House) and strengthening the Putin leadership. The advancement of political parties that
call for patriotism, law and order signify a retreat from Russia's democratic
INDIA: "Crack Down
The pro-BJP right-of-center Pioneer maintained (12/8): "Friday's suicide bombing on a train in
Chechnya, which killed 40 people while injuring 160 others, is yet another
attempt by Islamist terrorists to derail the peace process in Russia's breakaway
province, the chief architect of which is the Russian President, Vladimir
Putin.... The war against terror has
entered a new phase with the latest bomb attack, particularly in light of
Russian counter-intelligence agency FSB's report that Chechen warlord Shamil
Basayev has despatched several suicide squads to different parts of Russia and
Chechnya to destabilize the country on the eve of crucial parliamentary
elections. Indeed, every peace
initiative by President Putin has so far been met with acts of mindless cruelty
by the Islamist terrorists.... The
growing menace of Islamist violence in Central Asia bodes ill for the
future. With the resurgence of the
Taliban in Afghanistan, and the United States's faltering war against terror in
Iraq, the situation in the region is getting increasingly fraught with
danger.... While the US desperately
searches for legitimacy for its war against terror in Iraq, Russia does not
have to look over its shoulder to take the war into the terror camps.... Any success of Chechnya's Islamist radicals
is bound to provide a fillip to the spiral of terrorism in the region, one
which might prove increasingly difficult to contain. The arch of terror will then spread from Iraq
and Afghanistan right into the heart of Central Asia. Since the Islamist zealots who are killing
innocent civilians only understand the language of force and severity, Russia
must crack down hard on the separatists who are holding peace in Chechnya and
the rest of the country to ransom."