September 16, 2004
Beslan - Russia's Reichstag?
Feb 27, 1933, a fire started in the German parliament building, the Reichstag. The next day, Adolf Hitler, a quasi-democratically-elected national leader, convinced the nation to declare martial law and give him dictatorial powers.
Sep 1, 2004, a group of Chechen rebels stormed a school in Beslan, Russia, leading to the deaths of 300 innocent children. Ten days later, Vladimir Putin, a quasi-democratically-elected national leader, announced plans that essentially make him the only political power in Russia. Within days, Russian politicians universally praised Putin, despite their loss of power through the unconstitutional changes.
Are these similarities relevant? How scared should we be about the future of Russia and the world?
Putin seems to be leading Russia unwaveringly back into dictatorship. Opposition candidates were disqualified from the last national election without justification. His party is the only party with significant power in the Duma, the national legislature. All major national media is state-controlled. Wealthy and powerful oligarchs are thrown into jail if they dare to disagree with Putin (those oligarchs are most assuredly guilty of the charges, but all oligarchs are equally complicit in the plundering of Russia in the 1990s, and only those who disagree with Putin are prosecuted). In many ways, Putin's opinion is the only opinion that matters in Russia. And now, regional governors will be appointed by him instead of popularly elected, and that the national legislature would be decided by parties instead of directly elected.
Why do Russians accept these changes? There are really two reasons, one concerning recent history and one concerning long-term history.
- The Yeltsin years were horrible for most Russians; savings were decimated by inflation, unemployment was rampant, national prestige was lost along with the empire, and Yeltsin gave away the crown jewels of the nation to the oligarchs to win re-election. I was in Russia in both 1991 and 1997, and I saw many of the changes myself. There was sudden obscene wealth for many young people in Moscow, young people who walked past grandmothers begging and selling prized possessions on the streets in order to be able to eat. A Russian newspaper I read in 1997 claimed that 40,000 people had died in Russia the previous year of alcohol poisoning, a mixture of overdrinking and bad homemade vodka. Though there were nominally political freedoms, the people were starving for food and respect. There were even demonstrations in the streets recalling with nostalgia the days of Stalin, for at least then the people had food (a selective memory at best). As a result, Russians wanted stability. Putin offers stability in exchange for giving him complete power. The economy is much better now, so the people prefer food to freedom
- Russia has never had a tradition of stable, liberal, modern, Western government. From the Tsars to the Politburo, important men have decided everything for Russians for centuries. The only exceptions coincided with national crises: between the February and October Revolutions of 1917 during the disastrous first World War, and during the tumultuous Yeltsin years. While we in America and the West have seen the benefits of democracy and stable modern political systems, those experiments in Russia are inextricably tied to chaos.
Of course, there are significant differences between Hitler's rise in 1933 and Putin's rise now. Hitler led a party united by an ideology. Hitler had ambitions to conquer the world and the erase the Jewish race. In contrast, the only ideology uniting Putin's allies is power; there is no Mein Kampf. Putin hasn't shown any inclination to conquer the world; he's having enough trouble keeping the Russian Federation together and maintaining Russia's sphere of influence in Europe and Central Asia. Putin also has shown no genocidal tendencies other than the horribly-fought war in Chechnya, which is more about maintaining an empire than destroying a race.
Additionally, the actual changes Putin will push through are not as bad as Hitler's Reichstag Fire Decree. Here is the text of the decree in full:
§ 1.The articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights to personal freedom [meaning habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law.
So, while Putin's changes consolidate power in his hands, he does not eliminate civil liberties as Hitler did. Putin's decree is closer but not as strong as the Enabling Act from March 23, 1933, which converted Hitler's role of Chancellor from a figurehead post (a post he gained as part of a coalition government when the Nazis won 33% of the popular vote) to all-powerful dictator. The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to change the constitution at will, and it would not have passed had the Reichstag Fire Decree not authorized him to jail enough legislative opponents to get it passed by a 2/3 vote. This constitutional game is similar to what Putin is doing; Putin is claiming that his friendly legislature can make the electoral changes despite the need for a constitutional amendment for such changes. With such illegal changes in hand, Putin's power in the Duma likely will be increased so that he will be able to change the constitution at will, when he bothers to go through the legal process at all.
Finally, while it is generally accepted, though never proven, that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire to frame the Communists, I do not believe that Putin had any part in planning or executing the Beslan attack.
While some analogies to 1933 are compelling, Putin's gambit isn't directly as destructive as Hitler's was. Additionally, Putin hasn't shown the megalomaniacal bent that Hitler had. So, what should America's response be?
I'm glad that the Bush administration has backed away from the ridiculously simplistic idea that Bush had looked into Putin's soul and found a man he could trust. In a speech on Wednesday, Bush said "as governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy," and "I'm also concerned about the decisions that are being made in Russia that could undermine democracy in Russia, that great countries, great democracies have a balance of power between central governments and local governments." Hearing these statements is encouraging, but it will be hard for Bush to push further. Putin rebuked Bush for interfering, claiming that he was joining the US in the War on Terror, and that his changes are similar to the "tough and controversial security steps (taken) after the Sept. 11, 2001." Once again, Bush's overly-expansive rhetoric since 9/11 has made our diplomatic position weaker.
I don't think that Putin is taking Russia to a Hitler-style dictatorship, but his people will allow him to take their political power from them as long as he maintains a strong economy and appears to be strong in the "War on Terror." However, Putin's actions and history over the last four years show that he has little concern for democracy. Putin is famous for saying he was imposing a "Dictatorship of the Law." The joke in Moscow is that they've seen the first part of the promise without the second. This condition is extremely dangerous for the world's second-largest nuclear power.
We must do everything we can to stop this unconstitutional power-grab, and I encourage everyone to contact Senators and Representatives to put pressure on Bush to put pressure on Putin.
Posted by LawnBoy at September 16, 2004 09:26 AMGreat article, LawnBoy.
his changes are similar to the “tough and controversial security steps (taken) after the Sept. 11, 2001.”
Who didn’t see that one coming? The Bush administration, I guess.
Putin has also claimed the right to unilaterally use military force anywhere in the world whenever he deems it necessary for Russia’s defense. First up: Georgia.
Putan believed Bush was his friend and Russia would be alright. However, Bush has held back support for Putan for the last three years. It seems to me that Bush used Putan until he got his missle defense system passed without any trouble.
You are right though in your thinking. Russians deserve America’s help in their flight to freedom, but we need to learn to be slient in our good deeds. Bragging on what a good deed you have done doesn’t quite get it.
America needs to lead the way with real allies to form the institute necessary to defeat oppression everywhere on earth.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 02:10 AMLB: Great article. Must warn you though, your starting think alittle like me now. LOL.
I personally don’t care about what form of govt. the rest of the world has. I only care about ours when you narrow it down to that.
Our Reichstag was OK City. We lost many rights during clinton and many were killed for standing up against that administration.
Our second Reichstag was 9-11. We lost many rights because of that also.
When the next attack occurs, we will lose many, many more, all in the name of security.
Crazy thinking? Maybe. But, maybe, 9-27, a new American form of govt. will appear.
LB: Just a date given in some circles of the next CIAda attack occurring in the US.
Far out idea I know, but it is before the election.
Lawnboy, remember that the Reichstag fire was almost certainly set by the Nazis. Putin didn’t back the Chechen terrorists, and I hope that’s not what anyone is suggesting. The analogy falls a little short there.
> many were killed for standing up against
> that administration.
Tim, what are you talking about? Who stood up against the Clinton Administration and was killed for it?
I’ll venture to guess that you are talking about the Waco fiasco. But remember that they were not standing up against the administration, they were standing up against America and indeed against the world. They had no particular beef with the Clinton Administration.
I am also wondering what in the world you meant by “maybe, 9-27, a new American form of govt. will appear”. Besides being Wilford Brimley and Meat Loaf’s birthday, is there something else about that day we should be conscious of?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 16, 2004 11:41 AMTim, what is “CIAda”? And what do you mean by “some circles”? Are you in those circles?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 16, 2004 11:42 AMCf,
I did qualify that Finally, while it is generally accepted, though never proven, that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire to frame the Communists, I do not believe that Putin had any part in planning or executing the Breslan attack.
This is one of several places where the analogy admittedly falls short. However, I think there is still enough Putin’s history and his goals that should scare us.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 16, 2004 11:47 AMGood article LawnBoy.
Putin’s history has always scared me, and his current rhetoric scares me even more. Tim’s last two posts have me on edge, as well!
Posted by: Adrienne at September 16, 2004 12:01 PMLB’s article was talking about the Reichstag and could this russian deal be the next Reichstag for russia. I was just putting in my two cents about what I believe was our Reichstag.
CIAeda=Al Queda: It was heavily funded by the CIA and its leader was/is? a CIA operative.
I am in no circles as your question asks. However, I do read all types of news, opinions and information. Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, third party and “on the fringe gourps” all included. I do not tow any party line, I do my own research and then make my own decision. Heck, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2002. Or at least the movie where Moore got all of his info. from.
Yes Cf, Waco and Ruby Ridge had no beef with clinton personally. But they did have beefs with the way the govt. is being run. They were not standing up against America as you say, they were standing up against what America has become.
Either incident could have happened and probably will happen again, with any type of corrupt administration in power. I wasn’t signaling out only clinton for these murders occurring.
Adrienne: I am sorry for seeming so extreme. But when one looks at “all” of the info. out there, it makes you wonder. If what I read is proven untrue or cannot be substantiated, I totally discount it. Such as the latest SwiftBoat ads against kerry and the guard stories against Bush.
But if it has merit, I look deeper. There are just too many facts supporting that OK City, Ruby Ridge, Waco and 9-11 did not happen as reported by the so-called press.
Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin Speak out Against Putin’s Reforms
Posted by: Anna Pisarevskaya at September 16, 2004 04:12 PMGreat article LawnBoy. And great link Anna. It makes sense that they would speak up. With the ongoing problems with Chechnya, the Yukos debacle, and now this blatant power grab, Russia is looking worrisome. (Understatement?)
And it should be mentioned that Bush did call Putin on this. Yesterday I think. I’ll see if I can find a link.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 16, 2004 08:30 PMNow we will see if Russians are willing to speak out for their rights and peace on their land. Al Qaeda and her network is about to wake up a gaint they have never knew.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 08:33 PMush said “as governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy,”
Oops, I didn’t notice it was the same story.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 16, 2004 08:42 PMI imagine this is what happens when you elect a former KGB agent president.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2004 11:01 PMAny cause whatsoever that believes that murdering, deliberately murdering, hundreds of small children deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Don’t even bother saying that America has killed Iraqi children—you know as well as I that any time that’s happened it was by accident, the unavoidable consequence of any war no matter how just, and that Saddam’s policies were killing 50,000 children a month.
Russia still has democratic elections, and unless the Breslan incident were to actually change that, the Reichstag comparisons make no sense. You might as well say that Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt’s “Reichstag” moment. The differences are more relevant by far than any forced an unrealistic comparison. This whole tendency to evoke Nazi Germany to prove some far-fetched point has gone on to long—worthy of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather, but nobdy else.
I actually think that Russia, along with Israel, will eventually be recognized as our real allies (along with Britain and the rest or our Iraq coalition), while the rest of Western Europe—our “indespensable friends” who contribute nothing to our friendship—will sink in our estimation to the significance they actually warrant.
Posted by: Martin at September 17, 2004 01:24 AMTim, WACO?
You do realize that David Koresh was a pedophile don’t you?
You really want to run in those circles?
Posted by: Greg at September 17, 2004 01:58 AMMartin, in general I agree with you, but do you really want to argue that Iraq is now more secure than before the invasion? There seems to be a few Iraqi’s that disagree with you.
Posted by: Greg at September 17, 2004 02:01 AMMartin, would you approve of Bush declaring that he alone has the power to appoint all 50 state governors here in the US? And shut down any news networks that displease him? Or are you saying that oppression and autocracy are okay for Russia but not for the US?
Do you think that Russia is still moving away from being a belligerent, invading, imperialist power, or are they moving closer to being like the old Soviet Union?
Do you think that Russia is still moving away from being a significant threat to America and America’s interests in spreading democracy in the world, or are they moving closer to being like the old Soviet Union?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 17, 2004 08:44 AMMartin,
While you are right that invoking the Nazis is always dangerous (in fact, I broke Godwin’s Rule with my first sentence), I don’t think the comparison is farfetched in this case. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under former President Jimmy Carter, warned Tuesday that Russia is becoming “increasingly a personal dictatorship” under Putin and that his rationale for restricting democracy “is reminiscent of Hitler’s use of the Reichstag fire to destroy the remnants of democracy in Germany.”
Robert Orttung, associate research professor at the Transnational Crime and Corruption Center of American University in Washington, said the spread of democracy represented “a real accomplishment,” in Russia over the past several years. “This is a huge step backwards in terms of democracy,” Orttung said. “Some think it is a return to authoritarian rule in Russia.” (same source as above)
You have a point that the Chechen rebels deserve retaliation for the attack in Breslan. But Putin’s response was not to increase the war or to retailiate; making all regional governors Presidential appointees has nothing to do with the fight against the Chechens. It’s a case of using terror as an excuse to consolidate political power.
That’s why it’s frightening.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 17, 2004 08:45 AMHere’s a funny political cartoon on the subject.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 17, 2004 09:00 AMGreg: It was never proven that he was a ped. The members who survived have all denied this and even CPS said there was no proof of it, but they felt he may have been. The media are the ones who pushed the ped. story. If the stories were actually true, then why didn’t the feds arrest koresh while he was walking to town to get supplies? Many townspeople and survivors have stated this as true.
I’m not saying they were right, they could have handled it better, but they died for what they believed in, their Constitutional rights. If koresh was raping their children, I do not believe they would have elected to die with him.
If he was actually charged with something, they should have served a warrant. Did you know a warrant was never served?
The meaning of my post was, all of us need to care about what is going on. If that had been a satanic cult, many of the right would not have cared. Because they had weapons, many of the left didnt care. To bad both sides are so polarized, they did not care about the people or their rights.
Posted by: Tim at September 17, 2004 11:57 AM> Because they had weapons, many of the
> left didnt care.
That’s ridiculous, we certainly cared. We didn’t, however, didn’t go crazy with conspiracy theories and decide that the Waco fiasco was evidence that the Federal Government (i.e., the Clinton Administration) was planning to round up all religious conservatives and send them to concentration camps, nor did we use it as a rallying cry to call for terrorist attacks against the USA. I mean, if using Waco as a rallying cry against the US Government is “caring”, then I guess I don’t care.
Fact is, Waco was a tragic accident. The result is evidence only of the incompetance of the law enforcement agents who were there.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 17, 2004 10:45 PMAl Qaeda and her network is about to wake up a gaint they have never knew.
Haha! Henry, to hear bin Laden tell it, he held off the whole Soviet Army in Afghanistan all by himself. These guys aren’t afraid of Russia.
They’ve probably brought a boat-load of hurt down on Chechnya, though. And Georgia’s pretty nervous, too.
I find it ironic that i was lambasted by the left for daring to note the dangerous anti-freedom, power-consolidation steps that Hugo Chavez is taking, and now everyone is up in arms about Putin’s actions, just as I had predicted numerous times on that very thread (just go to that article and see my numerous references to Putin there- http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001429.html#more).
the point with Putin, as was the point with Chavez (As indeed was the point with Hitler) is that democratically elected leaders who show disrespect for the institutions of sustainable democracy are very very dangerous and need to be opposed. If only the left showed the same fire when their darling socialist Chavez imposed his “reforms” as when Putin takes his very dangerous actions.
Also, I do see some on the right who were on my side taking on Chavez, but are now defending Putin on this thread. For those- everything I said above applies in reverse…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 19, 2004 07:55 AMMisha,
I’m sorry I didn’t support you on the left for your article on Hugo Chavez; I was on vacation when you wrote the article, so I missed it. I agree with you that Chavez is a problem, even if his ideology tends to the left.
Your article on Chavez was very good, and both Putin and Chavez are worrisome.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2004 10:58 AMThank you Lawn! I think we recognize something that many do not- threats to sustainable democracy can come from people who profess to achieve all kinds of goals. Be they stoping terrorism or implement socialism or whatever. The problems of the moment MUST be solved in ways that do not threaten the future of an entire country’s political system.
By the way, I was going to write an article on Putin in the next couple of days- but you stole my thunder :). Well done.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 19, 2004 12:06 PM
