No Putin No Cry

(article written for school blog 4th March 2012)

It’s 19:50 and outside the Hampshire countryside is quiet, dark skies revealing the twinkle of the odd star. Tomorrow, I will get up and go to lessons - follow the daily routine. Who knows – maybe I’ll rebel against the norm and decide to cross to the ‘cold’ side at lunch, despite the allure of the beef Lasagne… That’ll be the extent of my insurgency. Meanwhile, it’s 23:50 in Moscow. The snow continues to fall mutely on an animated Red Square. The exit-polls of today’s presidential election are currently signalling the lead of Vladimir Putin, who’s gained a majority of 63.3%. Putin didn’t even bother campaigning he was so sure of his inevitable return to the Kremlin. Infact, as I write this, not all the ballots have been tallied – yet he stands on a pre-built stage victoriously addressing a crowd of his supporters… wait for it… CRYING at the words “Glory to Russia!”. This ex-KGB officer, with his black-belt in Judo and impeccably smooth pectoral muscles, actually shed a tear. He’s human?! The Russian twitterati for one are in shock: “I. Can’t. Believe. Putin. “Cried”” (@MiriamElder); “No Putin No Cry” (@JuliaIoffe); “Teary-eyed #Putin addressing 110,000 crowd in central Moscow” (@RT_com).  When the Muscovites wake up tomorrow to start their daily business, it will not be a typical day. It will be the first day of the second (and even longer) era of Putinism. But this one looks as if it’s going to be fundamentally different. The European editor of The Economist, John Peet, has pointed to the importance of the growing white ribbon protest movement: it will be interesting to see how the Russian authorities choose to counter-act this wave of disturbances and to what extent they might loosen Putin’s grasp on Russia. Unlike, the Ukrainian Orange Revolution of 2004 these demonstrations do not (yet) follow a single leader – their aim is not to usurp but to reform. Already the protesters and pioneers of the Russian blogosphere have announced their intention to take to the streets tomorrow to condemn the “fraud and corruption” of today’s elections. Indeed, there were many reports of “carousel voting” – buses allegedly transported pro-Putin punters from one polling station to another in order to register multiple votes. I spent today watching the progress of the election (yes, I have a life) through the system of webcams that had been set up to prove to the world and “those who wanted Russia destroyed” (according to Putin) just how ‘free and fair’ the elections were. This is one of the images I stumbled upon…

Casual electoral behaviour? Even more amusing was the image of Chechnyan soldiers (or was it rebels?) turning up at the booths, machine guns slung over the shoulders. I am by no means suggesting that Britain is politically superior: whilst Russia is almost shamelessly corrupt, we can’t claim to know half of what goes on behind the closed doors of Downing Street and – to be honest – I’d rather we were more blatantly undemocratic instead of being continually fed this ‘fig-leaf democracy’ claptrap. It will be interesting to watch Russia’s political landscape under Putin… Reporters are already questioning whether Moscow will witness its own Russian Spring…

(photos: via @MiriamElder)

© Francesca Ebel D-504 blog

Russian Elections 2012: The end is nigh... Or is it just the beginning?

This Sunday, the world will watch as the Russian Federation democratically elects its successive Head of State. Each citizen has the right to a single vote. Every ballot paper is sorted by independent and uncorrupted officials. The results are transparent, proportional and fundamentally egalitarian.

… Or so the story would go if Vladimir Putin really had been assassinated back in January. When a friend scampered up to me on Monday morning excitedly jabbering that the FSB had foiled an “attempted assassination plot” against Putin I thought she was joking. Having studied the French Revolution last year, I was instantly reminded of a similarly authoritarian character: Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1804, it was announced to the French that their precious First Consul had discovered an assassination attempt on his life. The apparent perpetrator was the Duke d’Enghien, who was swiftly executed. On December 2^nd 1804 at Notre Dame Chapel, Napoleon was declared Emperor Napoleon the First, gaining absolute power and control over his nation and the flourishing French Empire. This tactic is a timeless trick that has been used by rulers throughout History to unite and gauge the support of their realm. And guess what? It’s fool-proof.

But can you really keep a straight face at the Russian government’s allegations? Putin’s d’Enghien is an unsuspecting Chechnyan rebel who publically aired his guilty conscience on Russia Today – the state-controlled TV channel. Well, I guess if I’d tried to kill the future President of Russia (oh excuse me, is it too bold of me to jump the gun?) I would definitely broadcast my humiliating failure; putting my friends, family and country in critical danger – because that would be the normal thing to do right? It baffles me that the authorities have only just this week, seven days before the entirety of the Russian franchise are to make their presidential choice, announced this supposed conspiracy… surely if it had happened in January they should’ve proclaimed it there and then? It must have been all that paperwork…

The fishiness doesn’t end there. UK based exiles and renowned OPPONENTS OF PUTIN, Boris Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev, were revealed on Wednesday as being responsible for the killing of Anna Politkovskaya – the Russian human rights activist, journalist and OPPONENT OF PUTIN who was shot inside her apartment building in 2006 (it should be noted, on Vladimir Putin’s birthday). Look at those capitalised words very carefully… “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”…

I honestly can’t decide whether I support the courage of the white ribbon protesters or the advantages of Putin’s leadership… I’ve spent the last week parading about in a t-shirt bestowed on me by a friendly passing Russian activist which proclaims: “Vladimir Vladimirovich can fuck off”. But do I actually subscribe to this statement? I won’t pretend that I’m a little apprehensive about publicising my views on Putin – I know little about the internal workings of Russia; I have no idea about the realities of living in a politically suppressed state; I am only a young, western onlooker that records what she observes (and I want to impress this upon any Russian- based readers). However, it does seem that Russia is resigned to its fate. There is little hope for a dramatic and unexpected twist in Sunday’s results: whilst Russia’s governmental system echoes that of the Soviet-era with its domination of the siloviki (over 70% of Russian governmental officials derive from the secret intelligence service); the oil business, the power of the oligarchs and Russia’s own instrinsic corruption (referred to today in The Week as having the same features as that of the ‘gangsta’ tradition) will continue to shape the country’s hopes for a real democracy. Is it possible that Russia just doesn’t suit democracy? Although my head is with the reality of what is inevitably going to be a deeply flawed election, my heart is with the young people of Russia this weekend.

Recent demonstrations include those of the ‘human chain’ and 'Pussy Riot' (an all-female punk rock band): the recent uprisings have a symbolised a shift in Russia’s attitude (at least in the metropolitan areas) towards Putinism and the state of Russia’s democracy – tens of thousands of protestsers have braved the fiercely cold weather and even fiercer authorites in their struggle for “a true democracy”.

© Francesca Ebel D-504 blog

Putin, Russia and the rest...

Because I lack a social life and remain besotted with the Russian Federation, I have spent the past four Thursday evenings taking notes from the BBC documentary ‘Putin, Russia and the West’. This time last week, the Guardian journalist Luke Harding produced an article suggesting that the content of the series included “pro-Putin bias” and that certain sources (primarily British-based Soviet dissidents such as Vladimir Bukovsky) had even gone as far as to cite it as blatant propaganda (“If Putin had asked his propagandists to come up with a film they couldn’t have done better.”).

Does the ‘independent and neutral’ British Broadcasting Corporation really support the dictatorial, semi-tyrannous, domination of Vladimir Putin over the Kremlin? Harding himself has, in the past, hinted at the answer to this question, highlighting the BBC’s lack of material condemning and openly opposing Putin’s previous actions – in stark contrast to Harding’s own subversive articles which resulted in his expulsion from the Russian Federation in February 2011. He is indeed, the first reporter to have been expelled from Russia since the Cold War.

I would be inclined to disagree with Harding and critics of the documentary. ‘Putin, Russia and the West’ is a fascinating, powerful, well-researched political commentary on Russian affairs under Putin’s steely blue glare – examining a range of events such as, the 2008 Georgian War, the Ukrainian ‘Orange Revolution’ and the poisoning of former president Yushchenko, and the  recent 2010 Nuclear reduction treaty with the USA. Furthermore, it’s main focus (as stated by the producer Norma Percy herself) is on Russia’s foreign policy and its stance on the West – notably America. Critics have complained that the film ignores Russia’s harsh internal policy – even “glossing over” Putin’s human rights abuses in Chechnya. I personally feel from a westerners point of view, that this is less important: if Putin regains office in March, we need to understand the wider consequences that this will have on international relations. Of course, it would help us to understand why the mesmerising anti-Putin protests are taking place this very minute in Moscow, however, the basic facts are made pretty evident throughout the film:  Russian democracy does not, and will not, thrive whilst Putin has control. Last night, the BBC commentator made that crystal clear: “Vladimir Putin continues to undermine democratic principles and the rule of law.” Indeed, we could only watch, blushing at promisingly-more- liberal-Medvedev’s pitiful attempt to stand up to his ‘partner-in-crime’ which resulted in his resignation from the 2012 presidency campaign.

During yesterday evening’s episode, I studied the growing twitter trend (#PutinRussiaAndtheWest). I was surprised to discover the number of tweeters posting taglines such as, “I <3 Putin”, “Putin is such a bad-ass” and was even more astonished to find myself joining this display of adoration for Vlad. The effect the film had on the majority of views was somewhat revealing – perhaps the BBC is after all, subconsciously sympathetic to the regime. To put all ‘professional tone’ to one-side – Putin is very politically sexy. The documentary explored this phenomenon beautifully, showing clips of his harsh, direct manner in dealing with oligarchs and corrupt officials; and his seduction of the public through miraculous publicity stunts (see attached clips – they are hysterical). It was enough to make one want to invite him to replace the current Prime Minister (it doesn’t matter that you don’t speak English Mr Putin – you get results and target those responsible for this sh*t!)

Putin shows one of Russia's richest men who's boss...

So Vladimir, you can speak English?! There's hope for us yet!

© Francesca Ebel D-504 blog

Rule, Britannia!

Currently I have the good fortune of studying the English Civil War and the Cromwellian Protectorate. Insightful though it has been, this morning I found myself growing increasingly depressed with our pathetic efforts at a “Revolution”. Let’s face it our “English Revolution” was just a loud, unnecessary parliamentary tantrum. It achieved next to nothing, except huge public debt and an unstable, bickering regime (sound familiar?!).  It was infact the peaceful ‘Glorious Revolution’ some 20 years later that really changed the British constitutional landscape, yet even the Chartists, of the 1840s, with their fruitless efforts for proletarian representation, are hailed as the more radical. We had a King, laboriously executed him (nothing, compared to the fêted guillotine of Louis XVI); witnessed the failure of a handful of aristocrat-dominated Parliaments, a Republic, a military dictatorship, and then blushingly re-established another ringlet ridden monarch. Pfff. We came full circle, with little improvement. Indeed, it seems that our revolution, even back then, subscribed to traditional British principles – the restoration of the monarchy was a comfortable last resort, not the die-hard glorious ideology. Perhaps the high point of the turmoil was when, as a result of Pride’s Purge (a so-called ‘keystone’ in the creation of the English Republic), the excluded Parliamentary members headed straight to the nearest Pub (Ironically named ‘Hell’). I do, at least, raise my rusty ale chalice to this jovial side-note.

I realise that this post will probably not appeal to all – it may be just a blur of meaningless chronology to you. But what it all really comes down to is this: will Great Britain ever be anything other than a constitutional monarchy? Will we always have the faces of a haphazard Hanoverian royal family on our coins?  It could be argued that before the Will & Kate’s wedding last year, a proportion of the population (especially youths) were disillusioned with the monarchy and what it stood for.  Just googling ‘anti-monarchy uk’ returns a countless number of hits (http://www.throneout.com/ ; http://www.republic.org.uk/ are amongst the results) However, I think it’s safe to say that the couple has given a breath of fresh air to the role – that much was evident from the more contemporary ceremony and the infamous open-topped car finale. Furthermore, Britain experienced a much-needed ‘bringing-together’ in 2011, with tremendous results. I fully expect that this year, with the Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee (if you make it past 64 years on the throne Lizzy I will openly curtsey to you then and there, wherever I am…) will be just as exciting and will undoubtedly appeal to the partisan element in us all – no matter how ‘hip’ or ‘leftie’ we are. Britons, prepare yourself for another rare conservative moment: I believe that for the time being, the monarchy fits the United Kingdom like an iron-cast glove… we might as well cling to it ;-)

Has the Russian Winter met the Arab Spring?

Although they are on opposite sides of the globe, are the uprisings of 2011 within these oil-rich nations part of the same movement? I have concluded that they do infact share parts of same cause – to rid their countries of the inner corruption which controls them and enhance/establish their own democratic status. This post will examine some of the current results from the events of February and December.

Last month, I attended a lecture given by a previous ambassador for the Middle East. He explained that the progress made in Arabia was extremely volatile and wrapped up in bureaucratic and military corruption – therefore a regime resembling anything remotely democratic would be a gradual and sensitive process. In Egypt for example, it is the army which holds the real balance of power. They will do anything to protect their own luxurious lifestyles which are, it must be noted, currently being funded by the US government itself (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/10/10_reasons_americans_should_care_about_the_egyptian_revolution) in US$2billion in “aid”. Hence, they have violently opposed a new constitution, one clause of which implies that all military spending should be transparent and controlled. Needless to say, the Libyans, Tunisians and Egyptians have been comparatively successful in removing their former tyrants and establishing some kind of democratic order, with elections being held and constitutions being codified. Syria is another matter entirely (partly because neither British or American interests are at risk)…

In Russia, the situation is utterly different. Although the Russian government has claimed to be democratic since 1991, with its proportional electoral systems and State Duma, it remains psychologically soviet (a recent article in The Economist ‘Homo-Sovieticus’ examined this phenomenon): riddled with blatant censorship, the domination of the FSB (the new KGB) who hold over 70% of governmental offices, and the extravagant power of the Russian oligarchy. Then there’s Putin himself whose unofficial dictatorship has become somewhat of a joke with the release of propaganda-type photographs two months ago.  The recent protests, although subversive by nature and symbolic of a new-born attitude towards Putin, will achieve very little in the short-term and are by no means a revolution. They may rock the boat but it seems Putin will return to the Presidency for at least another term.

On a separate but perhaps relevant note, I have come to the conclusion that Democracy is a waste of time and resources: it’s a manipulative governmental control mechanism to make the popular masses think they have power and influence and therefore maintain a relative degree of general contentment. There is no ‘democratic’ state on this earth that can claim they have the perfect democracy. In Britain our democracy is deeply flawed, not least through the use of a biased and majoritarian First-Past-The-Post voting system which – by the way – doesn’t work: we last had a true parliamentary majority in 1935. It would be great if we had a strong and stable single-party government with decisive executive powers but, excuse me, WE’RE IN A FLIDGING COALITION GOVERNMENT DURING A WORSENING ECONOMIC CRISIS. All we need is a British dictatorship (benevolent or oppressive – whatever gets the results) during times of crisis, and a proportional, direct democracy during times of prosperity. Only in heaven would it be that easy.