Er, I may not be Putin's biggest fan but calling him a "tyrant" is a bit much. That aside, what do you mean by "genuine democracy"? By various accounts (including international organizations), Putin won the popular election every time except for the last one which has accusations of wide-spread rigging. Just because Putin isn't best friends with US of A does not mean that he is a dictator whom the Russian people did not elect....Putin's tyranny playground? Can genuine democracy...
All Putin did to the constitution was extend the length of the term from four years to six years. The original constitution already allowed indefinite (non consecutive) reelection.Okay, fine. Make Russia a country where the president hasn't spent most of his years in power grinding out any organized opposition and rewriting the constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely, then.
Okay, fine. Make Russia a country where the president hasn't spent most of his years in power grinding out any organized opposition and rewriting the constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely, then.
It would create interesting effects definitely. Rutskoy would essentially be a temporary figure head, so Russia would lack a unified government, but arguably Russia doing absolutely nothing would have been better than listening to Yeltsin's reforms. However whoever succeeds him (or perhaps Rutskoy himself) would likely still attempt to concentrate power.That's easy, get rid of Yelstin in 1993 when he sends tanks to attack parilment.
Hopefully that prevents wild west capitalism, and that should cut down on corruption.if the Duma comes out on top in the 1993 crisis, the communist parties have just made a HUGE come back.
Eh, I don't know about that. Although the Soviet Union had plenty of corruption itself, a lot of the excesses were kept somewhat in check by the Soviet system. With the chaos of the 1990s and the breakdown of the Soviet system the corrupt officials could go to town so to speak. I'm not sure if you can put the genie back in the bottle with a POD in 1993.Hopefully that prevents wild west capitalism, and that should cut down on corruption.
Thinking back, I should have phrased it as "Siloviki elite" rather than "military-industrial complex" since the latter is more associated with conspiracy theories in the English language.I have heard it speculated that the whole "going through Prime Ministers" thing was organized by the "powers that be" (military-industrial complex) as they tried to find a potential presidential candidate that would represent their interests over those of then current oligarchs. Sounds like conspiracy nonsense but with how messed up politics are in Eastern Europe....
Isnt that how all politics works though? You got blocs, trying to get their preferred candidate to win, because they would rather their preferred candidate rather than the opposing candidate.I have heard it speculated that the whole "going through Prime Ministers" thing was organized by the "powers that be" (military-industrial complex) as they tried to find a potential presidential candidate that would represent their interests over those of then current oligarchs. Sounds like conspiracy nonsense but with how messed up politics are in Eastern Europe....
Stepashin couldnt win an election. Yeltsin's approval ratings were horrible, but his endorsed candidate managed to win, because as a newly formed nations, Russian politics were dominated by personalities rather than parties.If you're talking about just getting rid of Putin, it really isn't that difficult. He really came out of left field to emerge as president in 2000. You have to realize when he was appointed as prime minister by Yeltsin in 1999 it really shocked a lot of people. Also keep in mind that the prime minister of Russia is not the same thing as Prime Minister in most western countries. It is a position appointed by the president; it is not the leader of the majority party of parliament. In the late 90s Yeltsin was going through quite a few prime minister's, and when he picked Putin as his PM in 1999 a lot of people assumed that Putin wasn't going to stick around very long. Instead he is the guy who is holding the bag when Yeltsin suddenly retires in 2000. So to get rid of Putin Have Yeltsin abruptly retire in 1999 instead of 2000. Sergei Stepashin emerges as president And nobody ever hears of Vladimir Putin
The current Russia is a democracy, so it sounds like what your really asking is how to kill Putin rather than how to make Russia a democracy.![]()
Oh and killing Putin, its not going to happen. Dont even think about trying it.![]()
All Putin did to the constitution was extend the length of the term from four years to six years. The original constitution already allowed indefinite (non consecutive) reelection.
And all political parties attempt to weaken their opposition. Its more effective in Russia however, because when a political opponent is put under criminal investigation, chances are they actually do have something criminal they can be prosecuted for.
But when Putin attempted to break up the monopoly on mass media he was accused of assassination attempts and oppressing political opponents.In a typically democratic state, existing parties usually all have a fairly equitable shot at mass media. United Russia controls a large amount of mass communication, particularly when it comes to television, and has made it a policy to uphold that monopoly. So an election isn't necessarily a fair one when the opposition is marginalized by roadblocks of that nature deliberately put in place by the ruling party is it?
But when Putin attempted to break up the monopoly on mass media he was accused of assassination attempts and oppressing political opponents.![]()
Russia isn't a democracy, but it isn't an authoritarian state either. It very generally falls somewhere in between with certain regional exceptions (the Kadyrov government in Chechnya is not what most would call democratic).
In a typically democratic state, existing parties usually all have a fairly equitable shot at mass media. United Russia controls a large amount of mass communication, particularly when it comes to television, and has made it a policy to uphold that monopoly. So an election isn't necessarily a fair one when the opposition is marginalized by roadblocks of that nature deliberately put in place by the ruling party is it?