The Russian Government Just Resigned

Fonny122

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/putin-calls-for-constitution-changes-that-would-weaken-successor

Vladimir Putin has embarked on a sweeping reshuffle of Russia’s leadership, accepting the resignation of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and proposing constitutional amendments that would limit the power of a potential successor as president if he steps down in 2024.

In a surprise move, Russia’s government said it would resign in full just hours after Putin announced plans for a national referendum that would shift power away from the presidency.

Putin is laying the groundwork as he prepares for a transition in 2024 that analysts say will likely see him abandon the presidency but retain power through a beefed-up role as Russia’s prime minister or in the government’s State Council instead.

I'm going to make a bold prediction here that absolutely nobody at all will see coming a mile off and that nobody has been saying for years at this stage, which is that Putin might just be making a power move to circumvent democracy here.

Cordell

To circumvent what now?

mikhail

Isn't he constitutionally obliged to swap which one of President/PM is the big kahuna every couple of terms anyway? Is this just him preparing for his latest job swap with Medvedev?

MonkeyTennis

He wants to make the Prime Minister role more powerful so he can well become... Prime Minister as he cam only stay President for a bit longer

Fonny122

mikhail wrote: »

Isn't he constitutionally obliged to swap which one of President/PM is the big kahuna every couple of terms anyway? Is this just him preparing for his latest job swap with Medvedev?

Yeah, this just looks like a bit of a rinse/repeat of what he did in 2008 (I think?) when his time in charge should legally have ended. A decade later, and it seems he is still not done.

Fonny122

Cordell wrote: »

To circumvent what now?

Democracy.

Strong and stable government.

MadYaker

Fonny122 wrote: »

Democracy.

I think the point he was making is that they don't really have democracy in Russia. Putin's in charge end of story.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Strong and stable government.

That's it though. People fall for that sh*t.

SaintLeibowitz

They had democracy for a few months then yeltsin shot it up.

Gatling

Is anyone actually surprised ?


A few of us on here have been saying it for years Putin is an absolute gangster ,he's set Russia back years he has and people cheer him for interference either in Ukraine or elsewhere.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Extremely stable genius.

Fonny122

MadYaker wrote: »

I think the point he was making is that they don't really have democracy in Russia. Putin's in charge end of story.

Ah that makes sense, and is true. Though the paper thin veneer of Putin being anything but a dictator is basically gone now.

KWAG2019

Resign or Polonium.

Fonny122

Fonny122 wrote: »

Ah that makes sense, and is true. Though the paper thin veneer of Putin being anything but a dictator is basically gone now.

All the Russians I know talk about wanting a strong leader rather than the chaos that is western democracy... Their history and culture reflects that.

Justin Credible Darts

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

He wants to make the Prime Minister role more powerful so he can well become... Prime Minister as he cam only stay President for a bit longer

the boys resigning only will make it easier for him to accomplish that

blinding

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the boys resigning only will make it easier for him to accomplish that

I assume thats why they resigned, to make whatever Putin is up to easier , or else.

Fonny122

Deleted User wrote: »

All the Russians I know talk about wanting a strong leader rather than the chaos that is western democracy... Their history and culture reflects that.

It's hard to call it strong leadership when you have to rig elections and arrest your closest rivals prior to then though, is it? And I would hardly call western Europe chaotic compared to Russia.

Fonny122

Fonny122 wrote: »

It's hard to call it strong leadership when you have to rig elections and arrest your closest rivals prior to then though, is it? And I would hardly call western Europe chaotic compared to Russia.

You wouldn't. They would. Rigged elections in the US. The fighting between the left/right in the US and other western nations. The manipulation of voting districts, etc. It's quite easy to see where they're coming from.

Personally, I don't have much faith in modern democracy. It's not as if political parties truly represent the people anymore, and there is plenty of corruption spread across democratic systems. I don't know if a dictatorship is better. No idea. Time will tell.

Cordell

How many times need time to tell that a dictatorship is way worse than any democracy, as flawed as it may be?

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

How many times need time to tell that a dictatorship is way worse than any democracy, as flawed as it may be?

until an entirely better system is implemented and tested properly....

Just because a flawed democratic system is marginally better doesn't mean I, or others, can't consider other systems as a possibly better alternative.

Cordell

marginally?

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

marginally?

I've lived in both dictatorships and democracies. Yes. Marginally.

I don't find western governments to be held accountable to any real standards.. and without accountability, they're only marginally different.

Apiarist

Deleted User wrote: »

....and without accountability, they're only marginally different.

There are different degrees of accountability. Corruption in Russia is really much much worse than in any of the Western countries.

Here is a small story for you. My friend in Moscow got called recently as a witness to help with a police investigation. While she was in the police station, someone robbed her flat and really cleaned it out -- nothing of value remained. The robbers were in no hurry.

Now in a Western country, would you expect a policeman to inform his criminal friends about a property that can be robbed? No. In Russia you would not even be surprised.

See how a degree of accountability makes a difference?

victor8600

victor8600 wrote: »

See how a degree of accountability makes a difference?

The Banking crash, and the direct effect on my life (and those of my family), shattered my belief in accountability for either those in power, or their friends... so, no. No justice was served... and no accountability was enforced.

I've lived in both Moscow and St. Petersberg. Your example describes something different than accountability for politicians or those with power. Russian corruption is cultural... and goes back to before the revolution.

solidasarock

I thought Putin was endlessly flipping between being President and being Prime Minster when he reaches end of a term and changing the rules each time to move his power to the new role and making whoever took the role he was leaving a powerless puppet?

Why is this change different?

Apiarist

Deleted User wrote: »

...Your example describes something different than accountability for politicians or those with power. Russian corruption is cultural... and goes back to before the revolution.

Yeah, yeah, robbing people is a cultural phenomenon, so it's ok, right? My example illustrates how the lack of accountability of those in power trickles down so that nobody trusts the state anymore.

The fact that you lost some money in a banking crisis is tragic. Have you also lost all your savings in the 1990s in Russia? Just to compare.

Cordell

If we are to compare our own subjective experiences, I grew up in a dictatorship, which decided that being debt free is more important than being able to provide a decent standard of living, so they exported everything and brought in war time like ratios for food and fuel. That must sound familiar, right?
But objectively speaking, countries that have a high standard of living and respect the human rights are all democracies, no exception, none ever.

victor8600

victor8600 wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, robbing people is a cultural phenomenon, so it's ok, right? My example illustrates how the lack of accountability of those in power trickles down so that nobody trusts the state anymore.

Well, there's a difference. In Russia, they've never had a government apparatus that was even remotely free of corruption, and corruption is part of every aspect of their lives, from the street sellers, to the passport control offices. Corruption is ingrained in the very fabric of their society. As it is in China, to such an extent that their whole society is based around the passing of favors, and the avoidance of any degree of responsibility. In both cases, such a culture goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years, and you want to compare it with Ireland?

The point is that there is essentially zero accountability within most western governments, or politicians for their actions in the running of the country. Comparing to Russia doesn't change that.. if anything it reinforces just how corrupt Irish or US political parties have become. It's not as if Ireland is country with a system of governance going back hundreds of years, and capable of accumulating the degree of corruption that we can see in either Russia or China.

Okay then. How many Irish politicians who were in office at the time (or just prior) of the banking crash were held accountable for their decisions? How many lost their positions, were charged with negligence or corruption? (and no, not getting voted in next term isn't my idea of accountability since it simply reinforces the idea of politics as a game)

How many of the directors and leaders of those associated with the banks, or property tycoons were adequately punished?

Dunno why you're resisting the point regarding the lack of accountability in Irish political parties or those who served in the government...

The fact that you lost some money in a banking crisis is tragic. Have you also lost all your savings in the 1990s in Russia? Just to compare.

I lost the vast majority of my savings, most of my pension and investments in Ireland during the banking crash, and eventually, the company I was running with friends could no longer operate in a profitable manner. I've lived in Russia, and China... So, why would I need to compare when I have actual experience living in those countries?

You could, if you wish, make the point that my pension/investments should have been handled better...(hindsight is wonderful angle to use) although I'd point out that they were in supposedly safe areas of investment and shouldn't have been at risk... without a series of governments who had no respect for the positions & responsibilities they held. A responsible democratic system would have those politicians accountable for their negligence or corruption.. They weren't held responsible beyond the public outcry.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

If we are to compare our own subjective experiences, I grew up in a dictatorship, which decided that being debt free is more important than being able to provide a decent standard of living, so they exported everything and brought in war time like ratios for food and fuel. That must sound familiar, right?
But objectively speaking, countries that have a high standard of living and respect the human rights are all democracies, no exception, none ever.

To be fair, most successful countries foundations were built on something other than democracies... and we're talking about what's happening now, and what's next... many successful democracies are starting to fail politically, economically and socially.

But I'm not arguing against democracy... I'm arguing for the ability to consider something different rather than such discussions being shot down immediately.

mikhail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not as if Ireland is country with a system of governance going back hundreds of years, and capable of accumulating the degree of corruption that we can see in either Russia or China.

Tosh. China recently celebrated it's 70th anniversary as a nation. The communists officially declared a state in 1949, after years of civil war and Japanese occupation in the wake of the last imperial dynasty folding in 1911 or so. Ireland's coming up on a centenary and has enormous continuity with the British system of law and governance that preceded it. Corruption thrives in dictatorships. It's very little to do with the age of the system.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

Tosh. China recently celebrated it's 70th anniversary as a nation. The communists officially declared a state in 1949, after years of civil war and Japanese occupation in the wake of the last imperial dynasty folding in 1911 or so. Ireland's coming up on a centenary and has enormous continuity with the British system of law and governance that preceded it. Corruption thrives in dictatorships. It's very little to do with the age of the system.

I know.. I was here for the anniversary. Still am, right now. Back in Ireland in four days time.

Corruption was rampant within the Nationalist government in China prior to it's fall. Same with the last few Imperial Dynasties.

And I'd say that it has a lot to do with the age of the system, and the culture that springs from it. But, yup, you're right... it obviously isn't completely to do with the age of the system, otherwise Irish or US politics would be free of it.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, most successful countries foundations were built on something other than democracies... and we're talking about what's happening now, and what's next... many successful democracies are starting to fail politically, economically and socially.

For me the modern world foundations were built during the industrial revolution in a (mostly) democratic Europe. Flawed and early, but still.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'm not arguing against democracy... I'm arguing for the ability to consider something different rather than such discussions being shot down immediately.

What if we try it and we don't like it, how do we turn back? Democratically?

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

What if we try it and we don't like it, how do we turn back? Democratically?

There are many types of dictatorships that have been used throughout history, some with decent success. They're not all absolute rulers without controls in place. Sure, in the long run, they failed, but then democracy is still a relatively new government type in it's application, and is also facing stresses.

The point being that you dismissed any suggestion of a dictatorship being a positive, in favor of your own opinion of the value of democracy.

"How many times need time to tell that a dictatorship is way worse than any democracy, as flawed as it may be?"

Cordell

>>Sure, in the long run, they failed
My point exactly.

Didn't we have this conversation before?

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

>>Sure, in the long run, they failed
My point exactly.

Didn't we have this conversation before?

Nope. Never discussed this topic on boards before. Not that I remember anyway. In any case, I've no intention of continuing it.

Not that I agree with you.

I just can't be bothered to invest the time right now for something that would require a long discussion and a crap-ton of research/references.