Are Democracy and a Thriving Diverse Economy in Russia a Lost Cause?? (country, place)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Putin will be in for 8 years (though he's been having health problems now, just turned 60), then he's said to have identified another ex-KGB man to appoint as his successor. So is it hopeless for Russia to have real democracy and genuine free-market economic development from the grassroots up?
It is a lost case.
Only I don't see Putin as a root of it, but rather Yeltsin, his consolidation of power, and everything that took place back then. Putin's appointment was only a logical consequence of it all.
I mean the majority of Russians still do not believe in the justification of "privatization" of the nineties and they know that the majority of their well-to-do people are crooks and swindlers, because initially their capital came to them in criminal/ dishonest way.
What kind of future such society has?
I don't think it's a lost cause. We're not even 30 years removed from Brezhnev. Things take time.
"Time" is precisely what Russia does not have.
The destruction of science, culture, healthcare, education becomes more and more irreversible the further away it's "removed from Brezhnev."
It was supposed to be the other way around of course, but the practice shows otherwise, unfortunately.
Unlike the US, Russia can't be governed by mercantile interests primerily, which is clearly a case of post-Soviet Russia. It's destructive for the nation.
Only I don't see Putin as a root of it, but rather Yeltsin, his consolidation of power, and everything that took place back then. Putin's appointment was only a logical consequence of it all.
Do you think things would have happened much differently under Putin? It's not like either of them was trained and experienced in economic development, Western economic systems, and so forth. And Putin "grew up", so to speak, in the KGB culture, he doesn't know any other way to wield power. Democracy is alien to him.
Do you think things would have happened much differently under Putin? It's not like either of them was trained and experienced in economic development, Western economic systems, and so forth. And Putin "grew up", so to speak, in the KGB culture, he doesn't know any other way to wield power. Democracy is alien to him.
Huh?
Such question never even entered my mind, because independently from his "abilities," I can't imagine anyone with KGB background in charge of the country at that point in time - people simply wouldn't have any of it in the early nineties.
But I do understand why Putin ( with his background, specifically) was already embraced in the 200ies.
The problem is, no matter who was in charge, the IMF would have gotten involved, because the economy, such as it was, had collapsed. So that would have presented a temptation to anyone, all that money flowing in. But I can't help but think that under someone like Yavlinksy, the transition would have occurred more smoothly. I think it was Latvia that got a President who was American Latvian, and he went back to Latvia and helped manage the transition. Too bad Russia couldn't have had something like that, but the people probably wouldn't have accepted such a person.
The problem is, no matter who was in charge, the IMF would have gotten involved, because the economy, such as it was, had collapsed. So that would have presented a temptation to anyone, all that money flowing in. But I can't help but think that under someone like Yavlinksy, the transition would have occurred more smoothly.
Not just "smoothly" but it would have been like night and day.
Then we'd be able to talk about " prosperous economy and democracy" in Russia.
However the way I see it - his plan "500 days" as it has been called was clearly rejected in Washington.
The rest is history.
Here is an excerpt from Russian Wikipedia regarding this program;
"Yavlinsky's program was planned on economic union of republic, common currency, common laws and defense. At that the the council of ministers was supposed to be abolished and economy was placed into hands of the council of the government of every republic. Their autonomy had to be expanded. This was the main reason behind the rejection of the program.
Gorbachev sided with Soviet Communist Party and withdrew his support."
He's referring to the republics that make up the Russ Federation? Or the newly independent republics? This is fascinating. Why was this rejected, rejected by whom? Is there a book I can read about this?
Regarding economy: I'm bullish short-term; skeptical longer-term (5+ years).
Democracy: I'm skeptical within the next two generations. Unfortunately, I fear too many Russians have been tainted by the 'democracy' of the 90s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
