Tale of two elections

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 14:18:06 PM MST

In Russia yesterday, Vladimir Putin's party "swept" "to the kind of landslide long predicted for the parliamentary elections." Putin is mandated to step down from the Russian presidency in March. But that doesn't mean he's going away:

But he has declared that he will retain significant influence, whether as prime minister, leader of his party, United Russia, or a vague role described here as "father of the nation."

There were some voting irregularities in Sunday's election, causing opposition leader and chess master Garry Kasparov calling the election "the most unfair and dirtiest in the whole history of modern Russia ."

Putin's never been one to shy away from power, so it looks like he can create his own role in the future of Russia , a political role that's not limited by the constitution, an office, or much public scrutiny. Kind of like the way the old Soviet Union 's seat of power was centered in the Communist Party leadership, not the government.  

In Venezuela , Hugo Chavez' referenda to change the constitution were narrowly defeated. Among the changes was one that would have made him "president for life." Many news agencies are spinning the result as a big setback for the Venezuelan president, although that may be more wishful thinking than reality, given Chavez' approval ratings among his constituents.

In short, the Venezuelan people have denied, at the polls, Chavez' claims to dictatorship. Kevin Drum:

So the constitutional changes were rejected (good); Chavez didn't try - very hard, anyway - to rig the election (also good); and apparently he's willing to accept the negative results (yet more good). All in all, a satisfying result so far. We'll see what comes next.

So, why am I comparing these two elections?

Bush on Putin, 2001:

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.

(Note a similar warm fuzziness for Pakistan 's Musharraf after his clampdown on his country's democracy movement.)

What the media has been saying about the danger of a rising, autocratic Russian state? Not much, compared to the hysteria surrounding Hugo Chavez.

I'm with Atrios on Chavez: he's neither "Satanic Hitler" he's made out to be by the press, nor the "Great Savior of the Left." He's "a left wing populist with an authoritarian streak."

no matter what they say it's "left wing populist" which makes the Villagers froth, not the authoritarian part. There are plenty of dictators around the world which get respectful treatment from our media, and the anti-Democratic authoritarian actions of our own president disturb them not at all.

But, in any case, it seems the dictator lost an election. Strange dictatorship indeed.

Anyway, watching US media coverage of Venezuela makes me realize that US coverage of foreign affairs is utterly corrupted by something. Still paying the piper. Who can forget this Orwellian NYT editorial?

Published: April 13, 2002

With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. But democracy has not yet been restored, and won't be until a new president is elected. That vote has been scheduled for next spring, with new Congressional elections to be held by this December. The prompt announcement of a timetable is welcome, but a year seems rather long to wait for a legitimately elected president.

After Chavez was elected in 1996 and re-elected in 2000, the New York Times cheers on a military coup which installed "a respected business leader" and hails it as a move signaling "democracy is no longer threatened."

Got that? It's not whether your authoritarian, it's not how much of an actual threat you pose to U.S. national interests, it's what threat you are to international corporate interests that really lands you in the fire.