Saving democracy in post-Soviet Russia?

Is there any way for Russia, with a POD of 1991 (or later, I suppose), to avoid becoming Putin's tyranny playground? Can genuine democracy take root without being smothered from one end or another of the political spectrum? What do the Russian experts think?
 

Incognito

Banned
...Putin's tyranny playground? Can genuine democracy...
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

Oh and killing Putin, its not going to happen. Dont even think about trying it. ;)
 
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.
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.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
You'd probably need to prevent the August coup somehow, and thus have the New Union Treaty go into effect to create the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics.
 
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.

That's easy, get rid of Yelstin in 1993 when he sends tanks to attack parilment.
 
That's easy, get rid of Yelstin in 1993 when he sends tanks to attack parilment.
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.

And as an interesting side effect, if the Duma comes out on top in the 1993 crisis, the communist parties have just made a HUGE come back.
 
Last edited:
And so much for having the LDPR attempting to steal votes. All in all, who should have been president of Russia other than Yeltsin, Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov?
 

Incognito

Banned
Hopefully that prevents wild west capitalism, and that should cut down on corruption.
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.
 
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
 

Incognito

Banned
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....
 

Incognito

Banned
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....
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.
 

girld22

Banned
Putin isnt really a dictator sure hes done bad things but what government hasnt and also he inherited a weak russia and transformed it into a powerhouse. Also mot really defending the guy but the difference between him and the opposition in the duma is like twenty six seats just 26 six seats.
 
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.
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
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.

In the span of a year, Putin became ridiculously popular, while Yeltsin's approval rating dropped until his retirement. Stepashin on the other hand opposed the Chechen war and lacked Putin's charisma which would kill his presidential bid. If Stepashin became acting president we end up with either the commies or the Fatherland Front as Russia's ruling party.

Primakov who was the Fatherland Front candidate was also ex-KGB, a strong opponent of America and NATO, and reasonably popular during his term as prime minister. Doesnt seem like he would have acted too much different from Putin, since the two appear to have been cut from the same cloth so to speak.
 
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. :rolleyes:

Oh and killing Putin, its not going to happen. Dont even think about trying it. ;)

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).

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.

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?
 
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. :p
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
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?

By that logic, there's nowhere in the world right now with fair elections. Just because America has two ruling parties working in tandem rather than one doesn't mean that the opposition isn't marginalized.
 
Top