Russian Presidential Elections 2012: Commentary in Russian and English

Are you happy with the integrity of the election? (Was there any cheating?)

How do you feel about having Putin back as your president, regardless of whether you voted for him or not.

Will anything change with Putin back as president, vs Medvedev?

Was just skimming the BBC article about the Russian election. They aren't actually mentioning anything about any irregularities! Maybe things have improved? Could it be that the election was unrigged and that the powers in charge have actually improved their ways..? The Swedish papers too interviewed lots of Russians in various rural cities, most of whom said that they were going to vote for Putin.

OOPS, Looks like there was some cheating after all, or....?


paste from the bbc

• 
  Here you can see Vladimir Putin turning out to cast his vote in Moscow, accompanied by his wife Lyudmila.
  
  http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image..._putin_rtr.jpg
  
  
• 1323:
  
  If you read Russian, my colleague Pavel Fedenko at the BBC Russian service has been writing their election live page since early this morning, Moscow time.
  
  
• 1330:
  
  Russian police report no serious violations at today's election which, they say, is passing peacefully - Russian news agency Ria-Novosti. Police remain on duty in the far east where voting has ended and the count is getting under way.
  
  
• 1334:
  
  The BBC's Steve Rosenberg has just spoken to Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption blogger at the heart of the protests over the alleged fraud at the December polls.
  
  
• 1335: Steve Rosenberg BBC News, Moscow
  
  Alexei Navalny tells me: "Grandiose scale of falsifications, especially in Moscow... mass use of carousel voting. Putin won't win. He will appoint himself president, an illegitimate president."
  
  
• 1338:
  
  Turnout has so far been higher than in 2008. According to official figures, nearly 48% of Russians had voted as of 11:00 GMT, compared to nearly 43% back then.
  
  
• 1343:
  
  He is not a candidate, not even a politician, but arguably he is the key figure in Russia's protest movement. Just who is Alexei Navalny? Read our profile.
  
  

Quote:

---

Will anything change with Putin back as president, vs Medvedev?

---

Нет.

Quote:

---

How do you feel about having Putin back as your president, regardless of whether you voted for him or not.

---

Никак.

Quote:

---

Was there any cheating?)

---

Ну, в какой-нибудь Чечне наверняка было. Но Путин все равно уверенно лидировал, в его победе сомневаться не приходится.

If there was absolutely no cheating, Putin would have won the elections anyway.
I think of two main reasons:
1. Effective propaganda: there was no day without TV showing Putin concerned about Russia or doing something for the benefit of Russia.
2. Lack of promising competitors: most people are sick and tired of Zuganov and Zhirinovsky. Other candidates are also not good enough. Mironov seems like a pale shadow of Zuganov, Prohorov can't win because he is an oligarh and his participation in the elections is perceived by many just like a whim of a rich person.

I think that the results would have been more unpredictable if, for example, the communists were represented by Sergei Udaltsov (his photo on Wikipedia is full of revolutionary romanticism :-); BTW, he is a great grandson of famous Bolshevik, member of RSDLP since 1905), Grigory Yavlinsky was not declared ineligible to participate in the elections, and there was Alexey Navalny running. But I think Putin would have won this time even in this case - just not so gloriously - because he is really popular.

The thing I hate most of all is the increase in the duration of a presidential term from now on.
I want to elect new president every 4, or maybe 5 years - but definitely not 6! In my opinion, it's too long...

I personally DO believe that Putin would have won without cheating.
If cheating took place it's really rather sad and pathetic.

The situation with overexposure of Putin in TV is an issue, isn't it?
But there are plenty of privately owned channels in Russia, aren't there? How come they also support Putin?

In Sweden, the almost uninterrupted rule of the Social democrats ended when privately owned TV channels were allowed - those channels immediately started (subtly) supporting parties more to the right of the political scale. By the time SD realised their "mistake", it was already too late to change. But it shows how enormously influential terrestrial TV is.

Interesting that the BBC talks a lot about Alexei Navalny - who nobody on Masterrussian likes. Yet, Navalny is presented as a hero of democracy.

There are no really oppositional channels broadcasting all over Russia.
Erm, I like Navalny BTW :-) At least I'd vote for him. But he chose not to run this time, so I voted for Zuganov instead - not because I support communists, but because I don't support Putin's second coming.

Say what you might, but you just CAN'T CHEAT more than 3-5% of votes... even in Russia. Well, let's humor the opposition and say 10% (a ridiculously large figure). Take that and even then the number of votes for Putin will be greater than 50%. And Navalny - he's a troll, a liar and as much corrupt as those whom he says he fights with. His affiliation with Stanislav Belkovsky removes all trust in his good intentions. Everyone knows just whose interests this man represents here.

http://pics.livejournal.com/avmalgin...wsaz1/s640x480

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Interesting that the BBC talks a lot about Alexei Navalny - who nobody on Masterrussian likes. Yet, Navalny is presented as a hero of democracy.

---

The BBC never let reality stand in the way of a good narrative.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5608/...bc316_orig.gif

PS: My interpretation - Medvedev informs Zhirinovsky about the results :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

The BBC never let reality stand in the way of a good narrative.

---

Well, they have a bit of a political agenda. It seems they first decide their general opinion about a certain country or person.
Then they report news that fit that agenda. Nothing new under the sun!

For example - "Russia is a dictatorship which possibly has hostile intentions towards its' neighbours". Then they go to Russia and find some news that match this agenda.
And ignore news and stories that do not fit this agenda.

But they are not totally biased against Russia - for example there was a really awesome BBC nature program called "Wild Russia" that was totally free of prejudice, just showing awesome views, animals and cool locations in Russia. But as for politics, their view is pretty clear.
This goes for some other European countries as well. Sadly, several countries have a really biased view of Russia. It is one thing to be truthful, another thing to have a hostile agenda!

As an alternative news source, you could watch "Russia Today" that is ignoring all rumours about cheating in elections, and goes to great length to show a picture of Russia as a peaceful country that respects other countries and stays clear of meddling. Incidentally their reports from the EU and USA are really good.

http://demotivation.me/images/20111205/3fd04e3689ak.jpg

There was no cheating in Chechnya :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well, they have a bit of a political agenda. It seems they first decide their general opinion about a certain country or person.
Then they report news that fit that agenda. Nothing new under the sun!

For example - "Russia is a dictatorship which possibly has hostile intentions towards its' neighbours". Then they go to Russia and find some news that match this agenda.
And ignore news and stories that do not fit this agenda.

---

I don't think it's as conscious as that. I think the bias is systemic; it reflects the prejudices of the people who work at the BBC - i.e. a middle-class, metropolitan, broadly-liberal set - and the more remote a subject the less likely it is to be treated with impartiality or objectivity ("remoteness" usually being a measure of distance outside the M25).

Quote:

---

But they are not totally biased against Russia - for example there was a really awesome BBC nature program called "Wild Russia" that was totally free of prejudice, just showing awesome views, animals and cool locations in Russia. But as for politics, their view is pretty clear.

---

BBC News is a self-contained department at the BBC. Documentaries tend to be commissioned and produced by specific channels, so there's a bit more scope for plurality there. Not much, but a bit.

http://demotivation.me/images/20120304/lp77txnzkl1i.jpg

My wife called the embassy in London a couple of weeks ago to ask them how to cast an expat vote.

"Don't worry about it," they told her, "you already have."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

My wife called the embassy in London a couple of weeks ago to ask them how to cast an expat vote.

"Don't worry about it," they told her, "you already have."

---

For real?! That's apalling! If that was some kind of cynical joke it was rather unprofessional. Embassy staff are public officials after all. Did she ask them to clarify exactly what they were referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

I don't think it's as conscious as that. I think the bias is systemic; it reflects the prejudices of the people who work at the BBC - i.e. a middle-class, metropolitan, broadly-liberal set - and the more remote a subject the less likely it is to be treated with impartiality or objectivity ("remoteness" usually being a measure of distance outside the M25).

BBC News is a self-contained department at the BBC. Documentaries tend to be commissioned and produced by specific channels, so there's a bit more scope for plurality there. Not much, but a bit.

---

Haha, I will have to stop my horrible generalisations now that you have joined the forum! You are absolutely right.
They have prejudice or whatever, and probably just unconsciously gravitating towards stories that confirm their bias.

Reporting about Russia in various countries, during various different eras and in different types of media is a really interesting topic, worthy of its own thread, I think.

demotivation.me used to be a source of fun, but nowadays it has become an assembly of retarded schoolboys of all sorts. I don't even know if it's proper to repost anything from there in a decent company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdns

I think that the results would have been more unpredictable if, for example, the communists were represented by Sergei Udaltsov (his photo on Wikipedia is full of revolutionary romanticism :-); BTW, he is a great grandson of famous Bolshevik, member of RSDLP since 1905), Grigory Yavlinsky was not declared ineligible to participate in the elections, and there was Alexey Navalny running. But I think Putin would have won this time even in this case - just not so gloriously - because he is really popular.

The thing I hate most of all is the increase in the duration of a presidential term from now on.
I want to elect new president every 4, or maybe 5 years - but definitely not 6! In my opinion, it's too long...

---

If you remove the red flags, Sergei Udaltsov in his Wiki photo looks like a skinhead looking for an immigrant to beat up.. I would never have guessed he was a communist....

About the 6 years.. It is certainly longer than standard. I have 3 comments

1) Am I right to guess that 2 x 6 years will take Putin right up to his retirement?

2) 6 years is at least 2 years longer than the European standard. Germany has 4 years, to mention another large country. The UK has a maximum of 5 years, but usually it's shorter. They are not a god example to follow for increasing democracy though. France or Germany are better.

3) A longer period COULD be good if Edinaya Rossia really has some solid good plans that would take a while to implement and come to fruition. Efter 6 years they cannot use any excuses for failures etc. Either they have some successes to point to, or they have not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

If you remove the red flags, Sergei Udaltsov in his Wiki photo looks like a skinhead looking for an immigrant to beat up.. I would never have guessed he was a communist....

---

:LMAO: How true. He has manners of a skinhead too, by the way.

Quote:

---

1) Am I right to guess that 2 x 6 years will take Putin right up to his retirement?

---

That depends on whether he would want to stay for the second (fourth ;) ) term.

Quote:

---

2) 6 years is at least 2 years longer than the European standard. Germany has 4 years, to mention another large country. The UK has a maximum of 5 years, but usually it's shorter. They are not a god example to follow for increasing democracy though. France or Germany are better.

---

As far as I know (I cold be mistaken and I'm too lazy to google it out), but France had 7 years for 1 presidental term, no?

Quote:

---

3) A longer period COULD be good if Edinaya Rossia really has some solid good plans that would take a while to implement and come to fruition. Efter 6 years they cannot use any excuses for failures etc. Either they have some successes to point to, or they have not...

---

United Russia will soon be disbanded/reorganized/reformed. I doubt they will last till 2013. The 'purge' is coming. It failed in December, even though they'd won, they failed nevertheless and I doubt there are still enough reasons to justify their existence. There will be a brand new party... and I think Prokhorov will play a major role in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

As far as I know (I cold be mistaken and I'm too lazy to google it out), but France had 7 years for 1 presidental term, no?

---

I am too lazy too.. it wasn't obvious from the Wiki entry. But I really don't think so. They always have elections there.... Possibly it's elections for different things...?
French elections are covered quite extensively in the British press, that's why I know about this. And when they are not feuding it out for an election, someone is organising a kickass strike that literally shuts down the whole country. Politics in France is really interesting. I am almost certain that elections are more often than 7 years. Does anyone else know?

Quote:

---

United Russia will soon be disbanded/reorganized/reformed. I doubt they will last till 2013. The 'purge' is coming. It failed in December, even though they'd won, they failed nevertheless and I doubt there are still enough reasons to justify their existence. There will be a brand new party... and I think Prokhorov will play a major role in this.

---

What makes you think that?

Would Putin really allow that to happen? If he could not stop it, what do you think he would do?
I mean, he would officially be president, representing that party, right?

Is this a common opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

probably just unconsciously gravitating towards stories that confirm their bias.

---

:shock:

Quote:

---

What makes you think that?

Would Putin really allow that to happen? If he could not stop it, what do you think he would do?
I mean, he would officially be president, representing that party, right?

Is this a common opinion?

---

+1
How did they fail?

Quote:

---

France had 7 years for 1 presidental term, no?

---

5 years.

Quote:

---

That depends on whether he would want to stay for the second (fourth ) term.

---

It doesn't. He can take another post, prime-ministre for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

:shock:

---

Well you can't imagine how anti-Russia everything was in the English speaking countries during the Cold War. You know - films, books, news, everything. It'll probably take a full generation for them to get that out of their system. It's a topic for another thread, really. They really thought that Russians were totally devilish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well you can't imagine how anti-Russia everything was in the English speaking countries during the Cold War. You know - films, books, news, everything. It'll probably take a full generation for them to get that out of their system. It's a topic for another thread, really. They really thought that Russians were totally devilish.

---

Yes, but BBC journalists were those who created this propaganda, not those who were to be affected by it.

(Deleted. L.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

What makes you think that?

Would Putin really allow that to happen? If he could not stop it, what do you think he would do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

+1
How did they fail?

---

It will be Putin who will make it happen. Shortly before the Duma elections Putin officially made it very clear that he and United Russia are not even related.
United Russia is like that old relative which has a very scandalous public reputation but you have to stamd by and wear that stupid smile to cover the awkward moment. As soon as he gets the chance I think Putin would completely severe all connections with the UR and disband the whole thing. Some key figures will migrate into a new political formation but the rest will be sent home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

I mean, he would officially be president, representing that party, right?

---

Yes, he is officially a leader of that party (without being its member) but he's not very happy about it, not to mention that many party members have actually betrayed him and supported ВалюТанюТолю (tm) instead. Quite a few members of the United Russia are secretly or not so secretly oppose him.
Why does he need such a party? It served its purpose, now it's a burden he would like to throw off.
That's why he created the All-Russia People's Front last year. He did that because he wasn't so sure in United Russia anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is this a common opinion?

---

Not quite common, you might even say that it's just me ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

For real?! That's apalling! If that was some kind of cynical joke it was rather unprofessional. Embassy staff are public officials after all. Did she ask them to clarify exactly what they were referring to?

---

Hah, no, I was kidding, in the spirit of the jokey poster in the post preceding mine.

I knew I should have added "badum-tsh" at the end.

Elections in the UK were for a parliamentary period of seven years before 2002. If elections took place before this it was because the calling of an election was at the discretion of the government, and the government saw to it that it called an election at a time advantageous to itself. And these elections were lightning affairs - very short campaigns. This led to "snap elections" called at very short notice.
The government still had discretion to call elections when it liked after 2002. But in November last year this discretion was ended with the introduction of Fixed-Term Parliaments.
Thanks to the "first-past-the-post" constituency system in Britain there have often been governments with parliamentary majorities that received less votes than the biggest opposition party. Imagine the stink if Putin tried to create an electoral system as rotten and rigged as this in Russia!
I've noticed a lot of commentators sneering at a president elected by less than 50% of the voters. But this is the norm in most European countries as far as I know. It's very unusual for a presidential election to be decided in the first round. Eg very recently in Finland.
Another aspect of slanted reporting - sudden and disproportionate emphasis on things normally ignored when they occur at home or in allied countries - is the orchestrated wailing of the media in Sweden (where I live) about corruption and violence suddenly increasing in Russia in the run-up to the election. As if it materialized out of nowhere. Democratic, squeaky-clean Russia suddenly going bad because of Putin. You'd almost think the Muslims are reaching their best-by date as bogey-men and it's time to resuscitate the traditional Russian-Soviet-Russian bogeyman again.
One thing all this shows is that Russia is once more claiming its rightful place in the International Community as a thief among thieves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xjy

Elections in the UK were for a parliamentary period of seven years before 2002. If elections took place before this it was because the calling of an election was at the discretion of the government, and the government saw to it that it called an election at a time advantageous to itself. And these elections were lightning affairs - very short campaigns. This led to "snap elections" called at very short notice.
The government still had discretion to call elections when it liked after 2002. But in November last year this discretion was ended with the introduction of Fixed-Term Parliaments.

---

That's not the best bit. The best bit is that any future government (with a Commons majority) could simply repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and then trigger a general election anyway, so it's literally not worth the paper it's written on.

Though I have to say, short election campaigns are one of the few things I do like about the British electoral system.

Mistaken identity gets Polish composer booed at the Bolshoi


Mistaken identity gets polish composer booed at Bolshoi theater — Gazeta.Ru | English news blog

http://img.gazeta.ru/files3/609/4014...1000-79841.jpg