In article
Post by velloPost by o***@hotmail.comPost by velloWell any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.
We read different sources probably. By data available to me Putin was
"elected" by Boris Yelcin, Medvedev by Putin. do you have different
data?
Different countries do it in different ways. In the US the primary system
does the initial selecting, the parties approve the victor in the
primaries by nominating him/her for the presidency, and then on election
day the electorate votes for electors, who are supposed to vote for the
candidate approved by the electorate, but are bot bound to do so. The
Russians use a different system, Estonia uses a yet a different system.
The disadvantage of the American system is that it costs hundreds of
millions of dollars, takes more than a year, and, as we saw in 2000, does
not always reflect the views of the majority of the electorate. The
Russian system thusfar has involved a selection by an incumbant president
and then approval of the choice by an election. The disadvantage of the
Russian system is that it has not allowed a strong system of competing
parties to develop, but rather is aimed towards maintaining the status
quo. This is good if the candidate is competent, but can saddle Russia
with incmpetents or gangsters if he isn't, something we know all too well.
But I doubt that any political scientist would call the Russian system
dictatorial or the Russian president a dictator. That title goes to people
like Mugabe and Lykashenko.
Post by velloPost by o***@hotmail.comSecond, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
Colonial war, you want to say?
Post by o***@hotmail.comThe economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
You talk about fuel prices - there is little to do with person who
keeps russian presidency.
Post by o***@hotmail.comWhen Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Was it this way? Exept chechens there was no show of independence any
more.
Post by o***@hotmail.comRussian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
What russians actually wii get from that?
Post by o***@hotmail.comRussia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
You are extremely naive, Karla, if you think one man can do something
serious with economy. economy is like living creature he walks by his
own laws. Of course, one can kill it like commies did in 1917 but you
can't force it.
The economy works by its own rules, but the head of state can certainly
influence it. Russia, which consulted with Norway concerning management of
its oil wealth, has made wise decsions that are visible in the strength of
the ruble, the recent prosperity of its urban centers, and the consequent
growth of a middle class that has a stake in managing and improving the
system using what is hoped will evolve into a normal political process
with checks, balances, and compromises between the different interest
groups in Russian society.
Nigeria and Venezuela, theoretically oil-rich countries able to have made
equally wise political decisions, have not done so. There the benefits of
high oil prices have been sucked off by foreign companies, corrupt local
élites, or social experiments. Their currencies are weak, and there has
been little of the kind of social change in those countries of the type
that can take place if unexpected money is invested wisely. Thus, I
disagree with you robustly that wise leadership lacks the ability to do
anything serious with the economy. Russia had oil and an oil industry
between 1991 and 1999, and oil empires were built that made Yeltsin's
inner circle, Khorordovsky, and a few oligarchs obscenely rich, with much
of those benefits flowing out of Russia as soon and in any way possible,
and being invested abroad because nobody trusted the political system or
the ruble, which did indeed collapse. After the collapse, quite different
policies were followed, the money is staying within Russia or being
invested more wisely abroad, and the ruble has become a serious currency.
I was in Washington D.C. last week and saw that Lukoil is running gas
stations there. Rubles are bought and sold in banks there just like Euros,
pounds, and yen. It is quite an amazing transformation.
Regards,
Eugene Holman