From the Eye of the Observer

London Politics

2010-02-27T03:39:00.000-08:00

Ukraine elections 2010

2010-02-27T03:35:00.001-08:00

New Rules for Rough Play

2009-08-13T00:38:00.000-07:00

August 12, 2009

The President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev has introduced a new bill to the Russian Parliament that would revise the current Law on Defense, and would broaden the conditions for Russia’s military action abroad. The introduction comes as a consequence of last year’s August war with Georgia, and sends a worrying message to the CIS countries, some of which already have a strained relationship with Russia.

The current Law on Defense allows Russia’s armed forces to take military action outside Russian territory only in response to aggression that is directed toward the country and poses a threat to Russia’s territorial integrity. The revised law will allow Russia to use military force “to return or prevent aggression against another state, to protect citizens of the Russian Federation abroad, to fight piracy and to ensure the safety of the shipping industry,” the outline of the bill on the Kremlin Web site states.

The president made it clear that the reform to this law has to do with the military conflict with Georgia. “It is tied to the well-known events of last year,” Medvedev told the Interfax news agency. The announcement has been timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the war, along with the appointment of the new Head of Military Training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery Yevnevich.

Some may be forgiven for thinking that these moves are meant as a warning to Russia's neighbors. Anatoly Tsiganok, the head of the Center for Military Prognosis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, believes that the new revision to the Law on Defense is a demonstration of Russia's power to the Caucasus and to Ukraine. “This law is only being introduced in order to be able to bring the military to fighting mode if any of the Russian peacekeepers are attacked by Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, without the say of Parliament,” he said.

As a result the revision is likely to upset the international community, which is already starting to worry about what these revisions could imply. “When the bill was first introduced by Dmitry Medvedev, I immediately got worried telephone calls from colleagues in Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine,” Tsiganok said. Russia used the precedent of protecting its own citizens to justify the fighting in August of last year, and the issue of citizen protection now raises the question of what will constitute such protection. Will it be used as an excuse to attack other countries if some misfortune befalls a Russian national there?

Opinion is generally divided between those who, like Tsiganok, believe that there should be no law giving the president the right to use military action abroad, and those who think that such powers may be justified in certain circumstances. The State Duma Deputy and Deputy Chairman of the Security Committee Gennady Gudkov believes that such a law may be necessarily to give the president a certain power of protection against the threats of foreign military attacks and terrorism. However, the existence of the law does not necessarily imply that it must be put into action. “The question of how we will act on the law is a question of future political situations and the relationship that we have with our neighbors and other countries,” he said.

Another debate surrounding the Law on Defense is that of the president's role. Many are concerned about the increasing power that the president will have to make such serious military decisions without consulting the Parliament. “We are constantly rolling toward total monarchy as the constitution and the law get replaced by the will of the monarch. This has led to various catastrophes and cataclysms several times now, and I am absolutely against this kind of model of government,” Gudkov said.

Tsiganok agreed. “When you talk about a law that would allow Russians to fight abroad, I do not think it acceptable that this right is given solely to the president. I believe that the decision to use force abroad should be made only by the Parliament,” he said.

There are also problems with the Russian constitution, which is vague on the procedures for responding to acts of aggression against the country. It does not seem to be clear who would be authorized to make decisions – the Parliament or the president, who would only inform the Parliament of what he had already decided and possibly even acted upon. This absence of a coherent code of conduct needs to be rectified. “The constitution must be developed thoroughly to take into account the various cases that may arise,” Tsiganok said.

Although it is not yet clear how the law will influence Russia's future actions, the decision to amend the existing law in this way may lead to discontent among other CIS countries. Georgia and Ukraine are particularly worried about Russia’s intentions, and this news will certainly increase their apprehension.

The mounting tension in the Caucasus was further intensified on Wednesday, when the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, while on a trip to Abkhazia, announced plans to spend around $500 million on military bases and the building of a protective border guard system in the region.

Meanwhile, Russia's problematic relationship with Ukraine this week was further jeopardized by Medvedev in an address to the Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko. In his video blog, Medvedev criticized the Ukrainian authorities for hindering the development of cultural and economic relationships between the two countries and taking “an openly anti-Russian position in relation to the military attack on South Ossetia by Saakashvili's regime.” Medvedev repeated the accusation that weapons used to kill innocent civilians and Russian peacekeepers were Ukrainian, and said that there would not be a Russian ambassador in Kiev until the relationship between the two countries improved.

2009-05-17T00:29:00.000-07:00

The Russian Constitutional Court suffers a second blow after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposes to appoint its chairman, replacing a previous policy of electing the representative among the court judges. A previous government decision has moved the Constitutional Court out of Moscow, to St. Petersburg to the great discomfort of many of the court's members. Why have these policies been adopted and could they lead to the side-stepping of the Constitutional Court?

Who Is to Judge?

2009-05-17T00:15:00.000-07:00

Printed By Russia Profile,

May 13, 2009

Experts See Medvedev’s New Initiative as a Step Toward Tighter Presidential Control of the Judiciary

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has proposed a new law to the Duma, which if ratified would mean that the chairman of the Constitutional Court and his deputies will be appointed by the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament, which will act on behalf of the president. The council is already responsible for appointing the judges of the Constitutional Court, but under the current practice, it is these appointed judges who vote to select a chairman.

The proposal has caused a heated debate among legal professionals and experts. While as of late, Dmitry Medvedev has taken a series of liberal actions, some critics believe that the proposed change of procedure is a sign of the government’s tightening grip on the judicial process.

The present procedure of voting in a representative for the Constitutional Court is a process that is done behind closed doors by the members of that court, arguably because the judges are qualified to choose a suitable representative. However, Elena Mizulina, a State Duma Deputy from the Just Russia faction, told the Kommersant daily that the new procedure would be “more transparent” because the chairman would be appointed by the Federation Council. But Nikolai Petrov, a scholar in residence at Moscow’s Carnegie Center, is skeptical of such an interpretation. “I think that the idea that this change would make the procedure more transparent is a laughable and distorted conclusion...I do not think that it is transparent, but a departure from the democracy that existed before,” he said.

Yet the idea that the president’s appointment of the chairman of the Constitutional Court through the body of the Council Federation means tighter control of the judiciary is nothing new. This control already seems to exist, according to Larissa Efimova, a legal advisor to the State Duma. “The members of the Constitutional Court are also picked by the president, so he could have indirect influence on the chairman of the court, which is what happened before. But the president also has an effect on the decisions that are made by the chairman,” she said. The argument supporting this view is that the Russian authorities already have a lot of control over the decisions of the judiciary. The Yukos case is a prime example of a case in which the judges were criticized for being politically influenced in their verdicts.

This proposed change to the procedure of appointing the chairman in the Constitutional Court comes after a series of apparently liberal moves by president Medvedev and his representatives in the legal sphere. Anton Ivanov, the chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and a close ally of Medvedev, recently proposed to introduce an examination for judges, which would test their knowledge and professionalism. These examinations would be monitored by lawyers, and the examinations would be kept as records for the whole duration of the judges’ careers. Another “liberal” move by the same man, Ivanov, was the dismissal of Judge Lyudmila Maykova on charges of corruption.

These motions, along with the president’s anti-corruption rhetoric and the disclosure of government members’ financial details (including those of their immediate family), signaled that the country was moving in a more democratic, or at least more transparent, direction. The proposed new measure would seem to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the authority of the judges at the Constitutional Court, the key tenets of the “rule of law” state Medvedev is supposed to be building.

Petrov thinks that this proposal is not at all surprising. “I do not see any liberal actions from the president. I see liberal sayings, but these are not at all turning into actions,” he said. In his opinion, the political image of the president as more liberal is meaningless, since it is not mirrored by liberal reforms. The proposed change of procedures in question is an example of an anti-liberal action, and in Petrov’s view entirely in keeping with Medvedev’s past record.

Another important “illiberal” proposal from the president is to prolong the term of the presidency to six years, and the ruling term for the State Duma to five years. This new law would entail changing the Russian constitution, and has been criticized as a step meant to help the current authorities retain their power. Whether this would be Putin, Medvedev or someone else is yet to be seen, but if passed, the law would hinder any further shift toward democracy.

The proposed new decree has also been criticized for giving the authorities the power to use the position of chairman to the Constitutional Court as an instrument of the Kremlin. This broaches the question of the president’s professional suitability to choose a representative for the judges. “The judges of the Constitutional Court have a very high level of trust; all of them separately can have their own flaws and merits, but all of them are representatives of the community of judges. To assume that the president has more insight than the professional community of judges is not a conclusion that works,” Petrov said. However, Medvedev has been trained as a professional lawyer, a background that could, some say, give him enough professional qualification to decide who would make the best representative for the judges of the Constitutional Court.

Yet other critics see the proposal as politically motivated. Efimova thinks that it is possible that the president wants to have more control over the judicial process. “Perhaps the president feels that he cannot change the composition of the court, but perhaps he can have some influence by assigning the chairman of the court,” she said. Many of the current judges of the Constitutional Court were appointed prior to Medvedev’s term in office. Perhaps by appointing the chairman, the president could gain some hold on the decisions of the court that would otherwise be left to those who were appointed by his predecessor.

Perhaps the president was motivated by doubts about the objectivity of the decisions made by the members of the court? Petrov believes that this is hardly the case. “If the president was such a genius as to be able to stand above the interests and positions of various groups, then this would be an absolute monarchy and we would not need a parliament, or a government as an independent body. We would have a monarch which would make all the decisions. I think that this system has been an anachronism for a long time, and we are in essence moving toward it,” he said.

2009-04-29T04:59:00.000-07:00

2009-04-29T04:44:00.000-07:00

Many people I know are leaving Moscow. They are leaving Russia and going far away. To Europe or to America. It seems like everyone is leaving, and I too want to go. I almost did. Why are we all trying to escape? Are things really getting worse, or are we just tiered that nothing is changing?

Medvedev's Mixed Messages

2009-04-21T01:17:00.000-07:00

Printed by Russia Profile

April 20, 2009

Although Nothing New Was Said, Medvedev’s Giving an Interview to Novaya Gazeta Is Noteworthy in and of Itself

Last week, President Dmitry Medvedev chose the notoriously critical newspaper Novaya Gazeta to give his first exclusive interview. This was the most eye-catching in a series of moves that could be deemed “democratic” and are meant to give some hope to Russia’s beleaguered liberal-minded constituency. However, the extent to which the president’s support of democratic ideas will be matched by action and legislation remains to be seen.

During the interview, the president was asked about the elections in Sochi, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s trial, and the real transparency of the government member’s earnings. But in response to all of Novaya Gazeta Chief Editor Dmitry Muratov’s provocative questions, Medvedev provided vague, generalized answers. For example, when asked whether the current Khodorkovsky trial has a foreseeable result, Medvedev replied that “for members of the government and for the president, there cannot be any predictions regarding any court case, including the one that you have mentioned.” When asked about the recent disclosure of government salaries (another of his recent “democratic” initiatives), the president admitted that there was no way of checking whether what government officials and their families declared was true, but restated the importance of such public disclosure. He hopes that his could eventually turn into a “tradition” that could make the government feel more responsible. “It is the first step in the right direction,” the president said.

Although the president’s giving an interview to such a controversial newspaper as Novaya Gazeta (which is renowned for high-profile murders of its investigative journalists, such as Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 and Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov, a lawyer with close links to the paper, earlier this year) is a step in the right direction in terms of the government’s confronting its liberal critics, what he said was far from groundbreaking.

Aleksei Mukhin of the Center for Political Information in Moscow said that Medvedev did not say anything new, and this was the whole point of giving the interview. By facing an opposition newspaper like Novaya Gazeta, Medvedev was looking to challenge the image of a weak president. But another goal of the interview was to “get a dialogue going with the civil society. Medvedev wants to divide his ratings from those of Putin, by getting the approval of the liberal members of society,” said Mukhin. In other words, the decision to speak with the paper had nothing to do with showing solidarity with its values, but was rather a means of spreading his appeal to the more skeptical parts of the Russian society.

Commenting on the interview, Muratov told Ren-TV that “It is correct that [the president] should choose Novaya Gazeta, because he is the president of the whole country and not just the nomenklatura or the oligarchs. I think this is why Novaya Gazeta was chosen, because the people in power want to speak to all of the members of its civil society.” Muratov also quoted Medvedev as saying “You know the reason that I chose Novaya Gazeta is because you have never kissed up to anybody.” These words were said off the record, but according to Muratov, the president assured the journalist that he could pass on the message.

This is not the first time that the president has openly endorsed the paper. At a meeting in the Kremlin following the murders of Baburova and Markelov, he said that he would be sorry to see the paper go. And again, though no transcript of the meeting appeared on the Kremlin’s Web site, he told Muratov to spread the word.

Nor is this the first time that the current Russian president has spoken about democratic values. But a lack of supporting actions is beginning to show through his excessive rhetoric. Talk of eradicating “legal nihilism” has been circulating for quite some time, yet corruption remains a serious problem in Russia. Although Medvedev often emphasizes his legal training and background, Mukhin said that this vagueness is due to the fact that “he is a lawyer, and legal terminology is opaque and does not provide concrete answers.”

It is possible that Medvedev is merely paying homage to Russia’s liberals. But it is also conceivable that he genuinely believes in an open and transparent democracy. Skeptics have rightly noted that he did not impose a serious independent moderation system for checking government salaries, but trusted officials to disclose certain documents. But this could be simply because he cannot yet do so. Perhaps it is a question of a lack of power and means.

Medvedev did not use the word “democracy” to describe the direction he wants his country to go in, but he stressed the importance of a civil society that could play an active role in Russia. This, together with his newly-proclaimed desire to build a Russian equivalent of London’s Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, suggests that he is interested in implementing some democratic values.

But not everyone is that cynical about Medvedev’s motives. The Echo of Moscow radio station recently drew a parallel between Medvedev and Mikhail Gorbachev, who, it was also widely assumed, would simply continue the policies of his predecessors. No matter how evasive his answers, Medvedev’s very decision to give his first exclusive interview to Novaya Gazeta is a radical departure from the approach of his predecessor Vladimir Putin. Following the interview, Medvedev also met with human rights activists and liberals at the Institute of Contemporary Development INSOR.

One prominent Russian political analyst, Stanislav Bolkovsky, told Echo of Moscow that in his opinion, Medvedev was merely tying to improve his reputation abroad. “Medvedev had to sooner or later show himself to be a liberal politician who could cooperate with different parts of society,” he told the station. This, he said, was part of the larger “Project Medvedev,” which aims to patch up the Russian government’s reputation abroad.

It remains unclear whether Medvedev's interview for Novaya Gazeta was a political move for the benefit of the government or a genuine gesture of support for the paper. Perhaps a combination of the two, it certainly got the attention of his critics, who will now be watching for actions that will back up his vague gesture “in the right direction.”

The Problem Of Russian Fascism

2009-04-14T00:13:00.000-07:00

Printed by Russia Profile

April 13, 2009

A new film has sparked reactions across Russia’s social and political spectrum, broaching issues of censorship, morality and nationalism. The audience appears to be divided into those who believe that portraying young fascists is an important part of the effort to understand the psychology and influence behind their violence, and those who think that the film simply glamorizes skinheads.

The Russia 88 “mockumentary” has no clear beginning. The viewer is simply thrust into the aggressive world of a fascist gang in the midst of their vandalizing and violence on the Moscow metro. It soon becomes apparent that the filming is being done by one of the gang’s members who is documenting their world.

Due to its controversial subject, the film has encountered distribution problems in Russia. Reportedly, a phone call from the government to the jury of the first international film debut festival the Spirit of Fire, held in Khanty Mansiysk, precluded Russia 88 from receiving the first prize. The filmmakers do not know who the call was from, but would certainly like to. They have been told by journalists that the latter have been discouraged from writing about this matter.

Rumors that the film has been banned are backed by speculations that the portrait of Adolf Hitler that the gang members quickly flip over when visited by the police, only to reveal Vladimir Putin on the other side, has offended the government. Others believe that it was a scene in which a member of an “official” ultra-right group offers the fascist gang a license and a legitimate right to act as part of this group—a clear insinuation that the government actually resorts to such tricks to attain its goals.

But despite the difficulties that this low-budget picture is facing, its producers hope that it will be released in the very near future. Anna Mikhalkova, one of the film’s producers and the daughter of the notorious film director Nikita Mikhalkov, as well as a well renowned actress and a producer in her own right, said that she decided to get involved with this film because of the importance of its subject matter and the necessity for it to be accessible to a wider audience.

The main subject matter of Russia 88—Russian nationalism and its racist tendencies—is a topical one. The names of the real victims of Russian Nazi groups are displayed on the screen just after the closing shot of the last scene – over a hundred people were killed in racially motivated attacks in 2008. And the film’s pseudo-documentary style actually does have genuine documentary elements to it: as part of the narrative, the members of the fascist group, dressed in neutral clothing, calmly interview members of the public outside bus stations and inside trains, asking people whether they believe in “a Russia for Russians.” The film’s director Pavel Bardin said that the film crew “wanted honest responses from people, and so the actors stepped out of character so that the public would not feel intimidated.” Most of those questioned agreed that Russia should be primarily for Russians, and that Russian jobs should be filled by the country’s citizens.

Pseudo-interviews with the gang members reveal an attempt to understand the reasons behind people’s involvement in fascist activities. Most do not have clear answers, but the group’s leader, named Blade, does. “I decided this when I became very afraid. I suddenly realized how many of them there are in this country. And there is no space for me. They are taking my jobs, they are after my sister, using her to register at her apartment,” he says in the film. The “they” he is referring to, of course, are non-Russian immigrants.

The creators of Russia 88 hoped that the film would address the wider phenomenon of xenophobia in the country. The explosion in Russian nationalism is partly the work of the government. As more immigrants flock to Russia, the country’s ethnic Russian population diminishes and its demographics change, the government tries to boost patriotic morale by promoting national pride and discouraging anything that would make Russians ashamed of their country.

Bardin said that the film elicited various reactions from real fascists, but most agree that the film’s portrayal of skinheads is realistic. “There were only a few details that these people thought were not authentic, such as the kind of clothes that fascists wear. Now they look very neutral, and do not wear any identifiable fascist clothing,” he said. In the film, the characters wear the tight trousers, boots and braces sported by British skinheads in the 1970s, and their band plays homage to the Oi! music movement of the same era. Some of the characters’ clothing bears references to the American white nationalist David Lane.

The film’s director strove for a realistic portrayal of fascists in order to understand them and include them as viewers. “I believe that there should be a dialogue with these people, and not just ostracizing them from society,” Bardin said. And this democratic approach to discussing prominent and uncomfortable issues has worked in this film.

The film’s screenings have produced lively and sometimes heated discussions in various cities across Russia, as well as outside the country at the Berlin Film Festival. The biggest issue is whether the film’s protagonist is portrayed as a hero. Blade is a stocky young man tattooed with Nazi symbols. He is tough with his girlfriend (one of the scenes suggests that he is going to rape her, although from her reaction it is unclear to what extent she is a willing participant of this sadomasochistic relationship). Blade and his friends drive around looking for migrant workers they can beat up, and attacking such “black-asses” is part of his passion.

Despite the main character’s violent tendencies and the murder of his sister and her boyfriend at the end of the film, some audience members believe that Blade’s character is likable. Following a public screening at the Tsvet Nochi café in the center of Moscow, one of the viewers said: “Well, ultimately he is a nice guy. Ok, so he may have slipped a bit by shooting someone, but ultimately this is an amicable character.” The same viewer, who introduced himself as Sergei, said that despite being present in the affluent restaurant where the screening was held, he had grown up in a similar environment and with similar people to the ones portrayed in the film. He believed that such people would interpret the film as a glorification of fascists.

Indeed, many in the audience agreed that the film would cause a reaction opposite to the one the creators hoped for, and would acquire a following—hence the question of whether the film should be distributed widely. Many believe that the film will simply aggravate existing nationalistic and aggressive tendencies. However, the film’s creators believe that banning such a film would mean banning the idea of a dialogue between the fascists and other members of the public—a dialogue that the film’s screenings have so far successfully evoked.

Bye-Bye Bling

2009-04-08T22:08:00.000-07:00

Russia Profile, February 29, 2009.

Article

Although the financial crisis has left many unemployed and facing difficult times, doing away with the glamorization of the Russian society may be a good thing. The mushrooming of fashion boutiques, ubiquitous cosmetic shops and the myriad of expensive cars on the streets did create an illusion of a country matching the Western consumerism, but have not done much for the nation's culture. With less money now available, those who still wish to express themselves will be forced to resort more to the imagination than "bling".

2009-04-08T21:59:00.000-07:00

A New Path the Old Way

2009-04-08T21:21:00.000-07:00

Since when have I been fascinated with sorrow? Perhaps it is since I have learned to be alone. Contentment and longing intertwine in the self-sufficient solitude that makes me search for adventure, to roam the world and record the simple and yet sometimes unbelievable tales inherent in it.

Some periods have been accompanied by various beliefs of a mystical hue, but this is often led to dark paths and painful mistakes. I would like to think that I have learned from them. Religion, or a search for it, no longer plays any role in my life, but there is still a strong undercurrent of wanting something else... It is fed by the beautiful, the rhythmical and the musical. It is fueled by strong emotions and a feeling of danger. The search for the precious and rare treasures that can manifest themselves in the complexity of human thinking and the interactions between various minds, and the relics that they leave behind - this is what drives me to keep looking, and to record.

Of course there are strong elements of hedonism and egoism in this. I cannot say I am fascinated merely by the world - I want to feel my place in it. But having lost myself in all the places I have lived, this life may just be a search for my own place. This does not have to do with location, or the culture, or the company that is kept. Although these play an important role, the most essential ingredient is that which is filtered through by me. This necessity to pass things through my inner wold has existed since childhood, when I kept an illustrated diary. In a way, this is what I continue to do. But now the concentration has shifted from the personal to the greater world, although it too is part of mine,

The solitude I have felt at some points in life is now compensated by a strong desire to be immersed in the greater world. I want to be where the action is, and feel that I am close or a part of these events. I can observe with some experience and understanding the different happenings and strangeness of extreme situations. They are normal to me. Without the possibility of some unexpected and strange occurrence, life somehow does not seem real enough.

The idea of working as a foreign correspondent, of traveling somewhere new and doing something in the midst of events is something that is life-igniting. Maybe this is just a fantasy, but Brazil has cast a magic spell over me, despite my never having been there. But even from the island that is Britain, it is pulling me in by its strong and dangerous force...