Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

History

How Russian democracy works: Russian politics 101

Published

on

27 Views

Russia is everywhere in the news today and that means people are focusing on Russian politicians. But who are they? What are their roles? How did they get there?

Here’s everything you need to know about how government in Russia functions.

The Federal Assembly 

This is Russia’s legislature. It is responsible for proposing and voting on individual legislative proposals and appointing and removing major officials.

The Federal Assembly has two legislative houses, the State Duma and the Federation Council. Each has distinct roles.

The State Duma 

The State Duma, sometimes called Russia’s Parliament is made up of democratically elected officials representing multiple parties.

Deputies to the state Duma are elected in one of two ways. 450 deputies are elected through party-list proportional representation. This is the most common voting method in Europe. Here, voters cast their opinion in favour of a party whose leadership delegates individuals to various regions to represent them in the event of a victory.

The remaining 225 seats are won through a single-member ‘first-past the post system’. Here several individuals from various parties or independent candidates stand in an election for a single seat. This is how America’s House of Representatives and Britain’s House of Commons is elected, for example.

Russia’s Duma has four major national parties.

United Russia: United Russia won a majority of seats in the most recent Duma election. This party is endorsed by President Putin and is generally considered a centre-right/moderate conservative party. It is one of Russia’s newer parties, founded in 2001.

United Russia is led by Prime Minister Dimity Medvedev

The Communist Party of The Russia Federation: This party is the successor to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It has remained consistently popular as a leading opposition party ever since 1991. It is currently the second most popular in Russia. It’s policies offer traditional Marxist-Leninist policies but it does not seek to subvert the Russian Constitution, does not call for revolution and unlike the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, does not seek to undermine the role of the Orthodox Church in Russia, even though most Communist remain non-believers.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR): This is Russia’s second oldest party and the first officially registered party in the Soviet Union after the Communist Party. Founded and lead by dynamic leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the party presents a combination of conservative policies that focus heavily on historical patriotism along with economic and social policies that are a combination of mixed-economy policies (capitalism and controlled economy) combined with a commitment to create stability and prosperity in Russia.

Many expect that as the Communist Party’s support ages, the LDPR will become an even bigger player in Russian politics. It currently is the third most popular party in Russia and almost supplanted the Communists as the main opposition party in the most recent Duma election.

A Fair Russia: This is Russia’s centre-left social democratic party. It had previously achieved success but in 2016’s Duma elections it came fourth place. It is still a major party though it’s popularity has recently waned.

The Federation Council of Russia: 

This is the upper-house of the Federal Assembly. It is comprised of 170 deputies (often called Senators), made up of two represntitives from each of Russia’s federal subjects (22 republics, 46 oblasts, 9 krais, 3 federal cities, 4 autonomous okrugs, 1 autonomous oblast).

The members are technically non-partisan but many have a party affiliation. Some want to change this and force each Federal Assembly deputy to declare his or her party openly as Duma deputies do. The LDPR recently proposed such a change.

The Federation Council is responsible for approving President decrees including emergency decree’s and declarations of war or mobilisation of the armed forces.

The Federation Council also must approve of official appointments and can remove corrupt officials including the President.

In practice, the Federation Council has many expert committees including in areas such as foreign affairs, the sciences, the arts and the environment. Many experts on everything from conflict resolution to modern trade initiatives sit in the Federation Council.

The Government of Russia 

The Government of Russia which fulfils a role similar to that of the US Cabinet, is made up of qualified individuals who are selected by the President.

At this time, the most famous such member of the Government is Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The Government is run by the Prime Minister who oversees the work of all other ministers. This position is currently held by Dimity Medvedev (a former President).

The current Defence Minister is Sergey Shoygu and the Finance Minister is Anton Siluanov.

The Government is responsible both to the President and also to the Federal Assembly.

The President of The Russian Federation 

Russia’s President is elected every 6 years on a one man/woman one vote basis. The Presdient is Russia’s formal head of state and is responsible for shaping foreign and domestic policy. The President often drafts legislation which is presented by a faction of the Duma.

The President has the ability to issue special decrees including emergency decrees. He or she is also responsible for making formal declarations of war.

The President’s most important role is represneting Russia on a world stage.

Russia’s current President is Vladimir Putin. He is eligible to run again in 2018 and most polls indicate that if he does, he will win due to his high approval rating among Russian citizens.

How to run for office at a national level

To become a deputy of the State Duma you must be a Russian citizen over the age of 21. If you are a member of one of Russia’s 14 official parties, it is up to the party to select which region you would represent in the event of a victory at the ballot box.

If you want to start your own party, you must obtain 200,000 signatures from your fellow citizens to get on the ballot.

To run as an independent in a single-member constituency you simply nominate yourself and campaign as best you can.

The vast majority of candidates are eligible for state funding to aid their campaign.

To get on the Russian Presidential ballot you do not need to do anything if you are a member of the State Duma. You simply declare register your candidacy.

If you aren’t but are a member of a major party, you must collect 150,000 signatures. If you wish to run as an independent you must collect 315,000 signatures.

Russia pioneered the use of webcams at all polling stations during all elections. This has helped Russia become one of the most transparent democracies in the world.

The Judiciary

Russia’s independent judiciary is governed by the All-Russian Congress of Judges. This body appoints judges based on personal merit and legal scholarship. Lower court judges are often appointed by the Judicial Qualification Collegia.

Russia’s court system is made up of the following courts, starting with the highest court

–Constitutional Court of Russia

–Supreme Court of Russia

–Regional courts of Russian Federal Subjects

–Raion Courts or District courts.

Small civil matters are often handled by courts of arbitration where small criminal matters such as petty crimes are dealt with by Magistrate courts. Most divorce and family issues are also dealt with in Magistrate courts.

The Moral of This Story

Many people outside of Russia are quick to judge Russia’s governmental system from a position of having no knowledge of it.

In reality, Russia’s government is functional and not dissimilar from that of any other first world nation.

Russia’s political system is far more democratic than the EU and in recent years has shown itself to be far more stable and less confrontational than that of the United States.

Furthermore, while the US has two major parties who are always at each others throats, Russia has four major democratic parties and several other prominent medium sized ones, all of which agree on upholding the Russian Constitution.

When it comes to Russia, ignorance makes for exciting narratives, but knowledge is bliss.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
9 Comments

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
bbs.iskyrobot.comgold investment companystainless steel strainerchase logonassuntos que caem em concursos Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cyndyt
Guest
cyndyt

Thank you for this most helpful article. Do campaigns cost millions of dollars in Russia as in the US ? Where does the funding come from ?
Again thanks

Jack
Guest

Thеre are, after alⅼ, sօme deetrimental points to freelancing.

One important levl is that if yoou happen too worҝ as a feeelance paralеgal you will
not be eligible fⲟr tthe varieties of advantages that ʏoud have in working forг a law firm օr
a personal аttorney. If you happen to feel that such
“perкs” as general health insurance and other such advantages are important, fгeelancing wont
give youu these benefits.

chase credit card login
Guest

What do you love it about Baton Rouge, both professionally and personally.

tci concursos
Guest

SS

assuntos que caem em concursos
Guest

RP

chase logon
Guest

Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Acting Chief Executive Officer
Mohamud Ahmed said they would continue to operate closely
with CBK along with the banking industry to mitigate possible
failures.

stainless steel strainer
Guest

It’s really a nice and helpful piece of information. I’m happy that you shared this helpful information with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

gold investment company
Guest

Happy to be among the visitors on this awe inspiring website :
D.

bbs.iskyrobot.com
Guest

Cutting off a room with a literbox is another example.

Latest

Trump Demands Tribute from NATO Vassals

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO are a captive audience.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Regardless of whether one loves or hates President Trump at least we can say that his presidency has a unique flavor and is full of surprises. Bush and Obama were horribly dull by comparison. Trump as a non-politician from the world of big (real estate) business and media has a different take on many issues including NATO.

Many, especially in Russia were hoping that “The Donald’s” campaign criticism of NATO would move towards finally putting an end to this anti-Russian alliance, which, after the fall of Communism really has no purpose, as any real traditional military threats to Europe have faded into history. However, Trump as President of the United States has to engage in the “realpolitik” of 21st century America and try to survive and since Trump seems rather willing to lie to get what he wants, who can really say which promises from his campaign were a shoot and which were a work.

So as it stands now Trump’s recent decision to maintain and build US/NATO bases across the world “and make country X pay for it” could mean anything from him trying to keep his campaign promises in some sort of skewed way, to an utter abandonment of them and submission to the swamp. Perhaps it could simply be his business instincts taking over in the face of “wasteful spending”. Making allies have to pay to have US/NATO forces on their territory is a massive policy shift that one could only predict coming from the unpredictable 45th President.

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO (and other “allies”) are a captive audience, especially Germany, Japan and South Korea, which “coincidentally” are the first set of countries that will have to pay the “cost + 50%” to keep bases and US soldiers on their soil. Japan’s constitution, written primarily by American occupation forces forbids them from having a real military which is convenient for Trump’s plan. South Korea, although a very advanced and wealthy nation has no choice but to hide behind the US might because if it were to disappear overnight, then Gangnam would be filled with pictures of the Kim family within a few weeks.

In the past with regard to these three countries NATO has had to keep up the illusion of wanting to “help” them and work as “partners” for common defense as if nuclear and economic titan America needs countries like them to protect itself. Trump whether consciously or not is changing the dynamic of US/NATO occupation of these territories to be much more honest. His attitude seems to be that the US has the possibility to earn a lot of money from a worldwide mafia-style protection scam. Vassals have no choice but to pay the lord so Trump wants to drop the illusions and make the military industrial complex profitable again and God bless him for it. This level of honesty in politics is refreshing and it reflects the Orange Man’s pro-business and “America will never be a socialist country” attitude. It is blunt and ideologically consistent with his worldview.

On the other hand, one could look at this development as a possible move not to turn NATO into a profitable protection scam but as a means to covertly destroy it. Lies and illusion in politics are very important, people who believe they are free will not rebel even if they have no freedom whatsoever. If people are sure their local leaders are responsible for their nation they will blame them for its failings rather than any foreign influence that may actually be pulling the real strings.

Even if everyone in Germany, Japan and South Korea in their subconscious knows they are basically occupied by US forces it is much harder to take action, than if the “lord” directly demands yearly tribute. The fact that up to this point US maintains its bases on its own dime sure adds to the illusion of help and friendship. This illusion is strong enough for local politicians to just let the status quo slide on further and further into the future. Nothing is burning at their feet to make them act… having to pay cost + 50% could light that fire.

Forcing the locals to pay for these bases changes the dynamic in the subconscious and may force people’s brains to contemplate why after multiple-generations the former Axis nations still have to be occupied. Once occupation becomes expensive and uncomfortable, this drops the illusion of friendship and cooperation making said occupation much harder to maintain.

South Korea knows it needs the US to keep out the North but when being forced to pay for it this may push them towards developing the ability to actually defend themselves. Trump’s intellectual “honesty” in regards to NATO could very well plant the necessary intellectual seeds to not just change public opinion but make public action against US/NATO bases in foreign countries. Japan has had many protests over the years against US bases surging into the tens of thousands. This new open vassal status for the proud Japanese could be the straw to break the camel’s back.

Predicting the future is impossible. But it is clear that, changing the fundamental dynamic by which the US maintains foreign bases in a way that will make locals financially motivated to have them removed, shall significantly affect the operations of US forces outside the borders of the 50 States and make maintaining a global presence even more difficult, but perhaps this is exactly what the Orange Man wants or is just too blind to see.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

High-ranking Ukrainian official reports on US interference in Ukraine

It is not usually the case that an American media outlet tells the truth about Ukraine, but it appears to have happened here.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Hill committed what may well have been a random act of journalism when it reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Hill.tv’s reporter John Solomon that the American ambassador to that country, Marie Yovanovitch, gave him a “do not prosecute” list at their first meeting.

Normally, all things Russia are covered by the American press as “bad”, and all things Ukraine are covered by the same as “good.” Yet this report reveals quite a bit about the nature of the deeply embedded US interests that are involved in Ukraine, and which also attempt to control and manipulate policy in the former Soviet republic.

The Hill’s piece continues (with our added emphases):

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

“My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” he continued.

Indeed, the Prosecutor General appears to be a man of some principles. When this report was brought to the attention of the US State Department, the response was predictable:

The State Department called Lutsenko’s claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, “an outright fabrication.” 

“We have seen reports of the allegations,” a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. “The United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive projects.”

This is an amazing statement in itself. “Our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer”? Are Americans even aware that their country is spending their tax dollars in an effort to manipulate a foreign government in what can probably well be called a low-grade proxy war with the Russian Federation? Again, this appears to be a slip, as most American media do a fair job of maintaining the narrative that Ukraine is completely independent and that its actions regarding the United States and Russia are taken in complete freedom.

Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.

Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that “the situation was actually rather strange” and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but “never received.”

“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. “At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy.”

“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts,” he said. “The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general’s office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem.”

“The portion of the funds, namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen for the recipient Prosecutor General’s office. But we have never received it,” he said.

Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who was at the time House Rules Committee chairman, voiced concerns about Yovanovitch in a letter to the State Department last year in which he said he had proof the ambassador had spoken of her “disdain” for the Trump administration.

This last sentence may be a way to try to narrow the scope of American interference in Ukraine down to the shenanigans of just a single person with a personal agenda. However, many who have followed the story of Ukraine and its surge in anti-Russian rhetoric, neo-Naziism, ultra-nationalism, and the most recent events surrounding the creation of a pseudo-Orthodox “church” full of Ukrainian nationalists and atheists as a vehicle to import “Western values” into a still extremely traditional and Christian land, know that there are fingerprints of the United States “deep state” embeds all over this situation.

It is somewhat surprising that so much that reveals the problem showed up in just one report. It will be interesting to see if this gets any follow-up in the US press.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin’s anti-fake news law is brilliant, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. This law is brilliant, for it hits the would-be slanderer right where it counts – in the pocketbook.

We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending