Democracy 'not needed' in Russia

SwordFish_13

Active member
Hi,

Source: BBC News

A growing number of Russians believe their country does not need democracy, a nationwide survey by one of Russia's leading polling agencies suggests.

The poll by the Levada-Centre showed that 57% of those questioned considered that Russia needed democracy - the lowest number since 2006.

It said 26% believed that democratic governing was not suitable for Russia.

Nearly 95% of respondents said they had little or no influence on what was happening in the country.

'Rigged' election

Levada-Centre said 1,600 people across Russia had been questioned in the poll which was released on Friday.

Russian police detain demonstrators in Moscow. Photo: 16 October 2009
Russian police dispersed a protest rally in Moscow, arresting some activists

Although the majority of them believe the country needs to be democratic, the results of the survey are an intriguing mix, the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says.

The majority (60%) also said it would be better for Russia if the president controlled both the courts and the parliament, which can hardly be described as a democratic aspiration, our correspondent says.

The poll also suggested that 43% agreed with the question that the country sometimes needed an "iron fist" leader.

And nearly 25% said the Soviet Union had a better political system that the current Russian model (36%) or that in Western countries (15%).

The poll came as Russian police arrested 10 people in Moscow who were protesting against an alleged fraud in last weekend's regional and local elections.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party tightened its already overwhelming grip on power after the polls, our correspondent says.

But three parties walked out of parliament earlier this week, protesting against the outcome of the elections. Two later returned, but the Communists are continuing their boycott.

Peace
-=SF_13=-
 
i think corruption isn't needed in Russia...
and you would think that the Russian people would of learned that the system that they desire doesn't work considering it ran its self into the ground and (i will anyway) not to mention such a system has never worked
and current systems claiming to be communist only maintain the control factor in common.

wouldn't 95% feeling that their vote had not effected the outcomes of elections suggest that they needed democracy?
 
Last edited:
not to mention such a system has never worked

Your right, a Soviet-Style socialist government didnt work. However, from 1946-1985 SFR Yugoslavia was going REALLY well [According to the hundreds of family members I have spoken to who have lived through that time]

If it wasnt for them damned religious freaks it probably would have kept going just fine, even with Josip B. Tito dead.

and current systems claiming to be communist only maintain the control factor in common

North Korea - It's more Fascism than anything else. Does the food aid even GET to the civillians there?

China - Capitalism, capitalism CAPITALISM!!

Cuba - I really dont know what to think of them

Venezuela - I guess they are alright when it comes to socialism. I mean their GDP isnt very bad, something around 15,000 USD. And they also have elections so not really a dictatorship [Not sure if Hugo Chavez rigs everything.]

Vietnam - I think they are sort of like China, just saying their communists but in reality they are not.

Nepal and Cyprus also have Leftist governments but I absolutely have no idea about whats going on there.
 
soviet style socialism didn't work(wasn't soviet russia and yugoslavia at odds?) tito worked he was the hero and he was nationalist and held the country together
to be honest if you measure success by saying they weren't killing each other then it isn't the best measure for success(not belittling Tito and his achievements he did well to keep a bunch of people together who didn't want to be together in the first place)
just saying people who lived through Tito then through through the ethnic conflicts will obviously say they preferred Tito
 
Last edited:
I know, the Soviet Government and Economy was vastly different compared to SFR Yugoslavia.

Yes, Tito was a hero. Unlike other leader's like Stalin, Churchill and Hitler he actually fought on the frontlines of World War II against the Wehrmacht, Ustasa and Cetniks. There's even a popular story that Tito's dog sacrificed its own life to save Tito from a grenade.

I measure SFR Yugoslavia's sucess by these things:
- Not arresting and shooting everybody who was against Communism/Tito
- Being one of the countries to found the "Non-Aligned Movement" during the Cold War
- Having probably the most sucesful Socialist economy of all time
- Allowing religion [I have a bit of a grudge on this to be honest, but it still worked]
- It's ability to have strong relations with both Western and Eastern countries
- It's high standard of education
- It would have had a pretty self-sufficient military by about 2000.

Oh and if Tito was a nationalist he would have been a Cetnik, not a Partizan.
 
he was still nationalist in the sense that the country of Yugoslavia existed rather than a bunch of smaller warring factions it still didn't have a exactly socialist government it was a hybrid that maintained the Communist dictator ship trend

a note on Churchill though if he would of been allowed to he would of tried to fight on the fronts he was a professional soldier at one stage and he wanted to be a part of the d-day lndings but his government and bodyguard forbade him
 
Last edited:
he was still nationalist in the sense that the country of Yugoslavia existed rather than a bunch of smaller warring factions it still didn't have a exactly socialist government it was a hybrid that maintained the Communist dictator ship trend

a note on Churchill though if he would of been allowed to he would of tried to fight on the fronts he was a professional soldier at one stage and he wanted to be a part of the d-day lndings but his government and bodyguard forbade him

If you define nationalist in that way then yes, I guess he was a nationalist which disregarded the tiny differences between the Croats, Serbs, Bosnians etc etc. Good idea too, nobody tried to kill each other then.

But look at it now!


Oh and I know about the Churchill thing, Apparently him and King George both wanted to go and fight there but in the end neither went.
 
it went like this Churchill said i want to go fight at Normandy but the king says if you go i must but i can not so neither can you
weird

although if the Germans were in his country i'm sure Churchill would of tried like Tito
 
Remember Gents, Communism is the Utopian state where there is no governement, and everyone gives each other what they need, simply because it's need.

Stalinist Russia WASNT communism.
The Present Chinese Regime ISNT communism

They simply call themselves communist.

Dictatorship and facism by other names are still dictatorship and facism.
 
Communism just fails before it begins. You get up to the part where everyone hands over their cash and then from there it gets quite predictable.
 
Churchill just might of...
but after reading his memoirs and that of his bodyguard i wouldn't be surprised if he was out there fighting
he had to be restrained on one occasion to stop him from trying to kill would be IRA assassins during an ambush in Hyde park where he most likely would of died if tried to attack them and at the time he was just as unfit as ever

and as for communism it is an impossible ideology
 
Last edited:
How is it impossible? I dont see how it would not be able to be implemented if you did it the right way.

Of course it would never work in a single country, it would only work if all the countries of the world turned Communist.
 
Lol, Churchill at DDay? He planned the Gallipoli campaign and I don't recall reading about him charging the trenches in that one.
 
Claims of Democracy is a scam in most countries including the West because of the way either businesses control politicians or politicians control the media. Everyone thinks they are too intelligent to be swayed by media bias, but advertisers know this isn't true. Russia has taken this to a new level were they are in theory a democracy but in practice a dictatorship because of the way the populace is manipulated.
 
Lol, Churchill at DDay? He planned the Gallipoli campaign and I don't recall reading about him charging the trenches in that one.
i didn't say he would of been any good...
and i wouldn't blame Churchill entirely for the gallipoli campagn i would honestly have to say it was the on the ground commanders who stuffed that up we got to the first day objectives then they recalled the troops back to beach...

Claims of Democracy is a scam in most countries including the West because of the way either businesses control politicians or politicians control the media. Everyone thinks they are too intelligent to be swayed by media bias, but advertisers know this isn't true. Russia has taken this to a new level were they are in theory a democracy but in practice a dictatorship because of the way the populace is manipulated.

might be true but it is still democracy because ultimately the people in the west still do the voting and the votes are counted and that is how the government comes to power however they come to deciding who to vote for is fair game (within reason) and this is not the way it appears to be working in Russia at the moment...
 
Last edited:
Claims of Democracy is a scam in most countries including the West because of the way either businesses control politicians or politicians control the media. Everyone thinks they are too intelligent to be swayed by media bias, but advertisers know this isn't true. Russia has taken this to a new level were they are in theory a democracy but in practice a dictatorship because of the way the populace is manipulated.

I think now its a good time to quote Nikita Kruschev [Ironically:


"The media is our cheif ideological weapon"

Seems that the same rule applies in Russia.
 
Theoretical democracies can have corrupt voting patterns, this is probably an extreme example.

About 1.3 million votes for Karzai were invalid, about a quarter of the total cast, the group added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8315519.stm

Of course the Florida scam was minor by comparison, but it was still a scam and enough to change the government.

Less obvious is the structure of votes and how it can obtain a disproportionate amount of seats, and how seeming innocuously names can confuse the public into voting for another party than they intended. The insertion of another party onto the ballot called the Literal Democrats (who no-one had ever heard of) was enough to reduce the Liberal Democrat vote to lose a seat in UK elections.

The Nazis gained enough power in 1932 by a democratic process but only scored about a third of the votes, this by various means led them to take over Germany and disband the democratic process altogether. Who you don't wish to come to power is sometimes more important than who you do, and there are various mechanisms to ensure the other 2/3s in this case could have voted against the Nazis in a second round of voting, after the weakest party had been eliminated. This election was the last relatively free and fair all-German election until the reunification.

The methods of corruption are endless unless the entire procedure is thought through and you assume every individual voter is a virtual imbecile, which may not be far off the truth.

In contrast to Winston Churchill's famous quote:

Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few. George Bernard Shaw
 
Last edited:
Back
Top