Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Eivanov

Marat

Marat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

well, how long one lives in the power is certainly not the issue, but how popular s/he is at the end of their carriers. Putin is among the a few, unlike Bush, leaders of the world who are famous at the end of their carrier. Putin has not grabbed power with force, but his massive popularity that has led him to reign as PM. people want him to be in the power. this is the reward for his services for the past eight years that are marked with the growth and development and Russians reckon it. when Russians have no problem then others have no credibility to raise a question.

Moss

Moss — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Marat

Here we are talking about democracy. And Russian is no way a democracy but an autocracy. Where likes of Putin rule, who are hell bothered about ppl and force their will on them. Putin is in the power not because he is popular but he had not allowed anyone to fight against his hand picked candidate, Medvedev, in the presidential election. He is in the power only because of the quid pro quo that he has settled with Medvedev. Reality is not what it seems, but too bitter and less known.

Harshpaul

Harshpaul — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

From the article:

Critics of Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, can on occasion impress us with a vitriolic tirade – usually articulated in a rude language – but not with the common sense or the knowledge of basic facts.

Thanks for illustrating what Eugene said.

Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

US is questioning it for noting. This is a propaganda politics. Why don’t they read the post carefully as the writer has added some facts with it. Well, consider this. Over here in the U.S. we have had Bush and Bush and so may examples included here. I think I see a trend developing here.

Yash

Yash — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Putin is a strong man with strong determinations. He is back again and will undoubtedly complete his mission for Russia. He is set to steer the wagon for President elect Medvedev. Once he controls the power inside, then he comes back to control it from outside. Essentially, Russian Presidency has not changed from the old Soviet era, one can be involved in senior position for a long time. But it is Russia’s internal issue and they are not answerable for anything Russians want.

Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

This is what I have been predicting something along these lines for some time. However, equation is exactly what I have presumed: there will be a ceremonial Head of State with Putin as Head of Government in the Kremlin in Moscow. This not only fits in with Putin’s overall strategy to restore the Russia that ruled over the Russian Empire and the USSR but allows the Tsars back in as a historic unifying force. It is not only Belarus that Putin wants to merge with but also the Ukraine and other former Russian Empire/USSR countries. The Romanov family ruled over these nations for centuries and is part of a common heritage; a common heritage that will come in useful in putting the old territory of Mother Russia back together.

Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

No even being an American, I don’t find Putin as power hungry. no matter what others say but this man has done a lot to the Russians. if he would have been too much in this power thing, he would have made constitutional changes to take the third term, and perhaps Russians would have approved that without hiccups. but he didn’t do that rather took a subsidiary role as a prime minister. A person who prefers country to his self interests is a great man. No doubts!!!

Michael Kerjman

Michael Kerjman — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

A question sounds strangely to me: any politician is as long in power as is being backed by forces supporting if even just only an image of person rather than a ruler acted in reality.

Assuring a real democracy to progress by rotating the most capable citizens in the White House by limiting any particular presidential rule with two terms in the office is what an American founding fathers’ prophetical intelligence demonstrated once again surely.

Speaking of an age, although sixty four is a limit for a government servants in Australia for instance, a long-promising to step down former PM J. Howard was simply shown a door by his own electorate not voting him into Parliament if even a national-liberal block leaded by him had won elections, which had not happened anyway in last November.

Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Fellow Contributors,

Thank you very much for your thoughful comments. Let me briefly answer some of them before I disappear on a business trip.

Marat, I agree with you 100%. People often forget that democracy means ”power of people” and not just fancy and costly primaries/elections. I believe that Kremlin is much more accountable to the Russian people that it usually gets credit for.

Moss, you wrote: ”[Putin] had not allowed anyone to fight against his hand picked candidate...” FYI, there were 3 more presidential candidates in addition to Medvedev, making it 4 total — twice as many as participate in most of the presidential elections in the US.

Mike, I agree with you that a ”trend” is emerging. I think we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting spouses running for the same office.

Gwalior, the Russian presidency did changed from the Soviet Union era. Back then, the leader of state was the General Secretary of the Communist Party, and president was a place for an honorable retirement. Things changed when Yeltsin made presidency the most powerful position. But I agree with you completely that this is up to Russians to decide.

Stuart, I applaude your predictive power. You wrote: ”It is not only Belarus that Putin wants to merge with but also the Ukraine and other former Russian Empire/USSR countries.” I follow Russian politics very closely, but I’ve never heard Putin saying anything like that. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

Michael, fully agreed!

Michael Kerjman, I share your thoughts on term limits. Couple of days back, The New Times, too, came against them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/opinion/09mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But when it comes to Russia, rules are different.