The american political system

The political system of the United States created by the Consti­tution and the Bill of Rights is basically the same today as it was in 1790.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The legislative branch is made up of elected representatives from all of the states and is the only branch that can make federal laws, levy federal taxes, declare war or put foreign treaties into effect. It consists of a Congress that is divided into two groups, called houses:

* The House of Representatives comprises lawmakers who serve two-year terms. Each house member represents a district in his or her home state. The number of districts in a state is determined by a count of the population taken every ten years. The most heavily popu­lated states have more districts and, therefore, more representatives than the smaller states, some of which have only one. In the 1990s, there are 438 representatives in the United States House of Representatives.

* The Senate comprises lawmakers who serve six-year terms. Each state, regardless of population, has two senators. That assures that the small states have an equal voice in one of the Houses of Congress. The terms of the senators are staggered, so that only one third of the Senate is elected every two years. That assures that there are some experienced senators in Congress after each election. The main duty of the Congress is to make laws, including those which levy taxes that pay for the work of the federal government.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The chief executive of the United States is the president, who, together with the vice president, is elected to a four-year term. Under a constitutional amendment passed in 1951, a president can be elected to only two terms. OFFICIAL REQUIREMENTS (as established by the United States Constitution) are: All applicants must be (a)at least 35 years old (b) citizen born in the United States (c) a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years. According to the 22nd Amendment, a president may serve no more than two terms, or only one additional four-year term if the individual has served more than two years of a prior President's term. The vice president's only constitutional duties are to serve as the presiding officer of the Senate; the vice president may vote in the Senate only in the event of a tie.

The powers of the presidency are formidable, but not without limitations. The president, as the chief formulator of public policy, often proposes legislation to Congress. The president can also veto (forbid) any bill passed by Congress. Within the executive branch, the president has broad powers to issue regulations and directives regarding the work of the federal government's many departments and agencies. He also is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president appoints the heads and senior officials of the executive branch agencies.

Under the Constitution, the president is primarily responsible for foreign relations with other nations.

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

The judicial branch is headed by the Supreme court, which is the only court specifically created by the Constitution. In addition, the Congress has established 11 federal courts of appeal and, below them, 91 federal district courts. Federal justices are appointed for life, and can only be removed from office through the process of impeachment and trial in the Congress.

ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The president of the United States is elected every fourth year. In November, voters in each state cast their ballots for electors previously nominated at party conventions held in summer. The electoral college is composed of presidential electors from each state equivalent in number to their total of congressmen and senators. Altogether there are 538 electors. By practice, the electors are bound to vote for the candidate who gets the majority of votes in their state, even if his popular majority is very small. So there can be a big gap between the popular and the electoral vote. Though the outcome of the election is generally known in November, formally the balloting takes place in the electoral college in early December, when the electors cast their votes in their respective state capitols. The votes are then sent to Congress where they are counted in the presence of both houses on January 6. The President-elect is inaugurated on January 20. Before being eligible to vote in November, every citizen must register in accord with the laws of his state. This entitles him to participate in future primary elections held to nominate candidates or to elect delegates to a nominating party convention. The registration procedure is highly complicated.

The U.S. Constitution contains only general provisions supposedly guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote. Everything else is established by state laws.

Salient deatails in the presidential elections: text for renedring

Как известно, выборы в США не прямые, а двухступенчатые. Сначала в американских штатах избираются выборщики, затем последние избирают самого президента. Вся же компания начинается с так называемых "промежуточных выборов", во время которых избираются делегаты на национальные съезды партии. Этот период, когда претенденты аккумулируют свой актив делегатов, а, следовательно, главное для них - так нужные голоса для съездов партии. Происходит выбор делегатов через "праймериз" - непосредственные выборы при тайном голосовании и "коукас" – партийные собрания, где голоса подаются открыто. Здесь уже и начинается головоломка при изучении избирательной американской системы - почему в одних штатах происходит только "праймериз", в других только "коукас", а в третьих - и те и другие. Объясняется это сложившимися традициями. Есть, например, и такая традиция. Промежуточные выборы начинаются в штате Нью-Гэмпшир. С 1952 года он стал в компании своеобразным символом: ни один претендент не стал президентом, не выиграв в начале в этом штате. Поэтому Нью-Гэмпшир становится для претендента как бы "пророческим"... Существует и так называемый "фактор Юга". Выведена такая формула: куда пойдет Юг, туда пойдет и вся страна. Поэтому победа в южных штатах особенно важна для претендентов в период "праймериз" и "коукас", а для кандидатов - на финишной прямой к Белому дому. И опять это избирательный "нюанс". На него следует примерно такой ответ: если Нью-Гэмпшир - штат, где проявляются сегодня "новые традиции", и он олицетворяет собой образ "молодого избирателя", то Юг связывают с консервативными традициями, "наследием конфедератов". Для кандидатов очень важно заручиться поддержкой обоих этих "крыльев".

2. Коллегия выборщиков образуется на основе принципов федерализма: каждый штат правомочен избрать столько выборщиков, сколько сенаторов и членов палаты представителей он посылает в конгресс, плюс ещё три выборщика избираются от федерального округa Колумбия, соответственно, столицы США - Вашингтона.

Ноябрьские выборы формально есть выборы выборщиков, которые избираются согласно американским конституционным нормам "в первый вторник после первого понедельника". Сами же выборщики голосуют за президента и вице-президента "в первую среду после второго вторника декабря". Но здесь своеобразный парадокс. Как правило, уже в ноябре становится известным, кто избран президентом Соединённых Штатов. Существует правило: партия, получившая относительное большинство голосов в данном штате, автоматически получает все голоса выборщиков данного штата. Конечно, голосуя формально за выборщиков, избиратель прекрасно осознаёт, что он голосует прежде всего за конкретных кандидатов на посты президента и вице-президента. Да и на панелях машин голосования в общем-то нет имён выборщиков, а указан лишь конкретный кандидат в президенты. Всё это, как видим, выглядит сложно. Это та же избирательная головоломка, но она устраивает верхние эшелоны общества. Был такой прецедент: в 1948 году Трумен не имел большинства голосов избирателей (только 49,9 процента), но выиграл процентом выборщиков - 57,I. Сложна и процедура голосования выборщиков и подсчёта их голосов. Коллегия выборщиков никогда не собирается вместе в полном составе, и голосование проходит в "51-й коллегии", как здесь говорят, то есть в 50 штатах и федеральном округе Колумбия. Нельзя назвать выборщиков людьми независимыми, голосующими согласно своему внутреннему убеждению, поскольку выборщик " функционер". Он фактически уполномоченный партии и обязан голосовать за кандидатов своей партии. Юридически выборщик, конечно, свободен, но над ним всегда довлеют партийная лояльность и осознание политических последствий "отступничества".

Part III

Main principles of the political strcutre and Elections in Russia

Russia elects on the federal level a head of state - the president - and a legislature - one of the two chambers of the Federal Assembly. The president is elected for at most two six-year terms by the people, and the president may only serve two consecutive terms. A candidate for president must be a citizen of Russia, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the country for at least ten years. The Law on Presidential Elections requires that the winner receive more than 50 percent of the votes cast. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote (a highly probable result because of multiple candidacies), the top two vote-getters must face each other in a runoff election. Once the results of the first round are known, the runoff election must be held within fifteen days. A traditional provision allows voters to check off "none of the above," meaning that a candidate in a two-person runoff might win without attaining a majority.

According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding laws.

The Federal Assembly has two chambers. The State Duma has 450 members, elected for five-year terms, all of them elected by proportional representation^. The Federation Council has 178 members: 2 delegates for each region, but they are not elected. To participate in the elections, parties not currently represented in State Duma must prove their trustworthiness by either gathering a minimum of 200,000 signatures from potential voters, or paying a bail of approximately $2.5 million.

Russia's president determines the basic direction of Russia's domestic and foreign policy and represents the Russian state within the country and in foreign affairs. The president appoints and recalls Russia's ambassadors upon consultation with the legislature, accepts the credentials and letters of recall of foreign representatives, conducts international talks, and signs international treaties. Several prescribed powers put the president in a superior position vis-à-vis the legislature. The president has broad authority to issue decrees and directives that have the force of law without legislative review, although the constitution notes that they must not contravene that document or other laws. Under certain conditions, the president may dissolve the State Duma, the lower house of parliament (as a whole, now called the Federal Assembly). The president has the prerogatives of scheduling referendums (a power previously reserved to the parliament), submitting draft laws to the State Duma, and promulgating federal laws. Under the 1993 constitution, if the president commits "grave crimes" or treason, the State Duma may file impeachment charges with the parliament's upper house, the Federation Council. If the president is removed from office or becomes unable to exercise power because of serious illness, the prime minister is to temporarily assume the president's duties; a presidential election then must be held within three months. The constitution does not provide for a vice president, and there is no specific procedure for determining whether the president is able to carry out his duties. The president chairs meetings of the Government, which he also may dismiss in its entirety. Upon the advice of the prime minister, the president can appoint or remove Government members, including the deputy prime ministers. The president submits candidates to the State Duma for the post of chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (RCB) and may propose that the State Duma dismiss the chairman. In addition, the president submits candidates to the Federation Council for appointment as justices of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the Superior Court of Arbitration, as well as candidates for the office of procurator general, Russia's chief law enforcement officer. The president also appoints justices of federal district courts.

The constitution prescribes that the Government of Russia, which corresponds to the Western cabinet structure; consist of a prime minister (chairman of the Government), deputy prime ministers, and federal ministers and their ministries and departments. Within one week of appointment by the president and approval by the State Duma, the prime minister must submit to the president nominations for all subordinate Government positions, including deputy prime ministers and federal ministers. The prime minister carries out administration in line with the constitution and laws and presidential decrees. The ministries of the Government, which numbered 24 in mid-1996, execute credit and monetary policies and defense, foreign policy, and state security functions; ensure the rule of law and respect for human and civil rights; protect property; and take measures against crime. If the Government issues implementing decrees and directives that are at odds with legislation or presidential decrees, the president may rescind them. The Government formulates the state budget, submits it to the State Duma, and issues a report on its implementation.

In the Soviet period, some of Russia's approximately 100 nationalities were granted their own ethnic enclaves, to which varying formal federal rights were attached. Other smaller or more dispersed nationalities did not receive such recognition. In most of these enclaves, ethnic Russians constituted a majority of the population, although the titular nationalities usually enjoyed disproportionate representation in local government bodies. Relations between the central government and the subordinate jurisdictions, and among those jurisdictions, became a political issue in the 1990s. The Russian Federation has made few changes in the Soviet pattern of regional jurisdictions. The 1993 constitution establishes a federal government and enumerates eighty-nine subnational jurisdictions, including twenty-one ethnic enclaves with the status of republics. There are ten autonomous regions, or okruga (sing., okrug ), and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (Yevreyskaya avtonomnaya oblast', also known as Birobidzhan). Besides the ethnically identified jurisdictions, there are six territories (kraya ; sing., kray ) and forty-nine oblasts (provinces). The cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg are independent of surrounding jurisdictions; termed "cities of federal significance," they have the same status as the oblasts. The ten autonomous regions and Birobidzhan are part of larger jurisdictions, either an oblast or a territory. As the power and influence of the central government have become diluted, governors and mayors have become the only relevant government authorities in many jurisdictions. Although Russia's regions enjoy a degree of autonomous self-government, the election of regional governors was substituted by direct appointment by the president in 2005.

The Public Chamber is a state institution with 126 members created in 2005 in Russia to analyze draft legislation and monitor the activities of the parliament, government and other government bodies of Russia and its Federal Subjects. It has a role similar to an oversight committee and has consultative powers. A convocation of the chamber is in power for a two-year term. The creation of the chamber was suggested by Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, on September 13, 2004, following the Beslan school hostage crisis. According to the law, on September 30, 2005, the President selected 42 members of the chamber who were supposed to have distinguished merit for the state and society.

Post-reading activities:

1. Explain the underlined terms and expressions in the texts above.

2. Draw a comparison of the political systems and the systems of elections in the three countries according to the following criteria:

a) a type of political system

b) frequency of elections

c) branches of power

d) head of the government: general requirements, procedures of elections, and the extent of power

e) unique features of the political systems rooted in the country’s culture.

3. Provide critical examination of the following statements: a) In Britain, the political system gives disproportionate power to smaller parties. b) Even though the American political system is considered to be stable democracy, the election system may be rather unfair because a presidential candidate with fewer popular votes may become president. c) Russia offers the most balanced system of elections despite some procedural flaws, which will fade away with time. d) The decision of the Russian president to appoint governors disrupted the process of democratization in the country. e) “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time( Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947, British politician (1874 - 1965).

4. Explain how all the information above and the discussions you have had have raised your awareness on the political structures of the three countries.

5. Read the essay below, authored by Yulia Latynina, a well-known Russian journalist, which contests the fairness of the election systems in the world in general. Paraphrase underlined words and word expression and explain how your position differs or coincides with that of the author.

Letting Poor People Vote Is Dangerous

Viktor Yanukovych’s victory in Sunday’s presidential election — not unlike the victories of former Chilean President Salvador Allende, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Adolf Hitler — once again raises doubt about the basic premise of democracy: that the people are capable of choosing their own leader. Unfortunately, only wealthy people are truly capable of electing their leaders in a responsible manner. Poor people elect politicians like Yanukovych or Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. When the Orange Revolution hit Ukraine five years ago, the people arose in a united wave and did not allow themselves to be deceived by the corrupt elite. That elite had reached an agreement with the criminals and oligarchs of Donetsk to make a minor criminal, who could not string two sentences together, the successor to former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. Five years ago, the Ukrainian people gave President Viktor Yushchenko a mandate for reform, but he failed. The country remains highly corrupt. One example: Yushchenko himself allowed the murky scheme in which all Russian gas came into the country through the intermediary firm RosUkrEnergo. Whenever a weak leader is incapable of managing the state, he starts looking for enemies and begins stoking nationalist passions. Yushchenko singled out Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko as his enemy and engaged her in a heated polemic over the Holodomor. Another strategy used by a weak leader boils down to: “If I can’t achieve a certain goal, then I’ll do everything possible so that my opponent doesn’t achieve it.” Yushchenko adopted this policy, calculating his every move to make life as difficult as possible for his successor — and, as a result, for the Ukrainian people as well. A key step in Yushchenko’s deliberate campaign of destruction was his decision to sign a law raising salaries and pensions by 20 percent, thus increasing the budget deficit by $9 billion in a single stroke. Right now, Ukraine is bankrupt and survives only with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund. Although the IMF warned that it would cut off its support if Yushchenko signed the law, he signed it anyway at the end of his term, knowing that his successor would have to deal with the severe consequences. Yushchenko’s term in office proves that the weaker the leader, the more the leader praises the “greatness” of the country. But Yushchenko’s failures do not compromise the idea of democracy; they only compromised his own reputation. It’s a different story with Yanukovych. Can you imagine U.S. voters putting a leader in the White House who is a puppet of the ruling elite and criminal clans? Ukraine’s recent election witnessed the convergence of democracy’s two greatest weaknesses — the tendency to fear strong individuals (Tymoshenko) and the tendency to vote for simple-minded people (Yanukovych). Poor people are capable of feats of bravery and revolution. They can storm the Bastille, overthrow the tsar or stage an Orange Revolution. But impoverished people are incapable of making sober decisions and voting responsibly in a popular election. And this, unfortunately, applies to Russia as well. In the unfair presidential election of 2000, Vladimir Putin emerged the winner. Who would have won in an honest election? Mayor Yury Luzhkov?

Topic 3: political parties and their platforms

Text 1

Pre-reading activity:

1. Discuss the role of political parties in a country and the world.

2. Answer the following questions: Drawing on your readings in other classes, how would you describe the images associated with the American parties? What are they? Could you name the most prominent activists representing these parties?

Возникновение политических партий и их проникновение во все сферы жизни

При составлении в 1787 году Конституции США отцы-основатели американской республики не предусмотрели в системе управления страной никакой роли для политических партий. Посредством различных конституционных механизмов, таких как разделение властей, «система сдержек и противовесов», непрямые выборы президента коллегией выборщиков, они стремились изолировать новую систему от влияния политических партий и фракций.

Вопреки намерениям основателей, США стали первой страной в мире, в которой политические партии организовались в национальном масштабе, и исполнительная власть стала переходить (в 1800 году) от одной политической силы к другой посредством выборов. Развитие политических партий было тесно связано с расширением избирательного права после отмены имущественного ценза на право участия в выборах в начале 19 века. После существенного расширения электората возникла необходимость найти средство для мобилизации масс избирателей. Для выполнения этой насущной задачи политические партии обрели юридический статус. Возникновение партий в Америке стало частью этой демократической революции, и к 30-м годам прошлого столетия они утвердились на политическом небосклоне страны.

Сегодня Республиканская и Демократическая партии присутствуют во всех сферах политической жизни. Почти две трети американцев считают себя республиканцами или демократами, даже и те, кто заявляют о своей независимости от них, обычно склоняются к одной из этих партий и обнаруживают значительную приверженность их позициям.

Две основные партии контролируют президентскую власть, Конгресс, институт губернаторской власти и законодательные собрания штатов. Начиная с 1856 года, все президенты были членами Республиканской или Демократической партий, а после Второй мировой войны доля членов основных партий страны в общем количестве голосов избирателей на президентских выборах составляла в среднем 95,4 процента.

Несмотря на то, что американские партии оказываются менее идеологически сплоченными и зависящими от своих программ, чем партии во многих других демократических странах, они играют важную роль в формировании государственной политики.

Post-reading activities:

1. Compare the information you learned from the text above with what you knew before reading.

2. Listen to a short interview with a US citizen and address the following questions: How has your understanding of the party system in the US changed? Which political party’s position does Mr. Harris share? What made you draw this conclusion? How is the political culture of the opposite major party described? How do his views help you understand the American political landscape? Could you point out inconsistencies in his worldviews? What questions would you ask Mr. Harris if you had a chance to meet him in person?

Text 2

Pre-reading activities:

1. In small groups, discuss what you know about the contemporary political parties in the Russian Federation.

2. Answer the following questions: What is the role of political stereotypes in people’s lives? How may stereotypes help or hamper people’s understanding of the world affairs?

3. The perspective reflected in the following reading will allow you to have an insight into the efforts to dispel the ever-present stereotypical representation of the Russian political landscape in foreign press. This is an excerpt of an essay by a Russian political analyst – who calls himself Kovane – written upon the request of Moscow Times. Make predictions regarding some common stereotypes the author attempts addressing.

Representing Russia’s political complexity

While reading the Western press, one never ceases to be amazed at how poorly real Russian political thought is represented. Journalistic laziness and, let’s be frank about it, ever-present anti-Russian bias take almost all news from Russia down the same beaten paths: the oppressive regime with imperial ambitions grinding down the opposition, even scarier nationalists striving for power with their legions of skinheads and lovable and enlightened liberals longing for prosperity and freedom; but denied by Putin’s propaganda. Needless to say, the actual situation is a far cry from these tropes, and their use makes an understanding of Russian politics much more difficult. And this is, in fact, the opposite of what the media is supposed to do.

Russia is a unique country in the sense that it was affected by the widest variety of political ideas, and most of them were implemented in the whole of Russia or in its parts during its turbulent history. That provides a source of inspiration for many political currents but also divides the people of the country, as different groups associate themselves with different periods of Russia’s history. The easiest possible way to describe these political groups is by finding out their position on a list of key issues, such as a preferable level of state interference in the economy, nationalism vs internationalism, territorial integrity, etc… It’s also interesting to see how they manifest themselves in the official political scene.

The Soviet emphathizers constitute the largest and the most diverse group, I daresay. According to polls, 68% of Russians regret that the Soviet Union disintegrated. But don’t hurry to get out Lenin’s dusty bust, the Commies aren’t coming back yet. This survey shows that of the 62% of the respondents that support Putin, 37% also positively view the CPRF (The Communist Party of the Russian Federation). What does that mean? Do ordinary Russians miss repressions or lectures on Marxism-Leninism? Maybe, but a much more likely explanation is that these numbers represent a mix of nostalgia and their hope for a strong government capable of providing stability and order.

Let’s take a look at more radical people, those who don’t support the current government and vote for the CPRF (according to the latest election, 11.57% of the population). Unsurprisingly, there are not many pure Marxists or Trotskyites among them: years of Soviet rule burnt out any desire to build Communism or incite the world revolution. Even the CPRF forfeited the cornerstone of a socialist economy, state-ownership of all means of production. As they state in their program, their boldest dream is the Chinese model: renationalization of several key industries, a progressive tax scale and small business support. And then standard pre-election boilerplate begins: tripling of wages and pensions, and free education and healthcare. Unfortunately, CPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov forgot to mention the sources of the riches required to do so, as well as many other interesting issues – like how the renationalization will be conducted, or how the CPRF is going to fight corruption. We just have to take his word for it. That demonstrates the main problem of the CPRF today – they don’t want any leadership, the present situation suits them fine: using traditional electorate support, they promote business interests of the same oligarchs whom they so fiercely criticize in public. Of course, this drives away many talented people with leftist views, and the CPRF’s support is slowly dwindling. It’s also worth noting that there are a number of non-systemic left-wing ideologues, euro-socialists, like Kagarlitsky, or rethinkers of Russian socialism, like the recently-formed “Rodina: common sense” party led by Delyagin and Kalashnikov. Their political clout is practically non-existent so far, but this may change with time.

Government participation in the economy: high, of course. National politics: internationalism, sometimes seasoned with mild anti-Semitism (some bad Jews are to blame for the Soviet Union’s dissolution) Territorial integrity: reunion of Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan on a voluntary basis. No plans for forcible inclusion of any countries; Saakashvili can sleep easy, the same for the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. Stance on foreign policy: suspicious of the West, and blame them for the woes of the 90s, It would be fair to say that the West gave plenty of causes for that suspicion. But almost nobody argues for a new Iron Curtain. Weaknesses: lack of a critical eye for the Soviet Union; frail balance between openness in the economy and autarchy; the CPRF’s rigidity. Prognosis: depends on Putin’s policies: if the current political system manages to solve major problems, like corruption and modernization, a portion of the left wing will switch allegiances. Otherwise, the leftist movement will be a source of real opposition, and their influence will only grow.

Liberals are the second-largest group. According to this poll, 10% of Russians support liberal values and 24% support democratic values. Setting aside any possible misinterpretations of the terms “democracy” and “liberalism”, I would estimate the liberal support base at 15% of Russians. Unfortunately, the history of Russian liberalism is a sad story indeed. The first time liberals got their hand on the helm was right after the February Revolution of 1917. Commanding a majority in the Provisional Government, Kadets (Constitutional democrats) had no clear-cut program and deferred any actions until the convening of the Constituent Assembly, while the country was slipping into anarchy. They predictably lost the elections to the Constituent Assembly, and that was it. The second coming happened right after the USSR’s collapse. New president Yeltsin favored “young reformers” and trusted Yegor Gaidar with nearly full carte blanche on carrying out the reforms. In the 1993 Russian legislative election, liberal parties received more than 30% of the vote (more than 50%, counting the LDPR, nobody knew them well at the time and they do have the words “liberal democratic” in the name). True, liberals were in office during the toughest times; any party would have suffered a drop in popularity. Nevertheless, “young reformers” were complicit in the most outrageous and criminal reforms – devastating the living standards of much of the population, and selling a majority of Soviet assets for a meager 9.7 billion dollars. That alone seriously compromised the notion of “liberalism” in the eyes of ordinary Russians. Liberals are represented in the political scene today by Yabloko, the oldest party, and countless socio-political unions; practically each opposition leader has one – Kasparov’s OGF, Milov’s “Democratic Choice”, Limonov’s “Other Russia” (although Limonov is a radical communist/anarchist, the liberal opposition is ready to collaborate even with the Devil if it brings more attention to them)  Ponomarev’s “For Human Rights” and even Novodvorskaya’s “Democratic Union”. There were attempts to unify some of them, and the “Solidarity” movement was created in 2008: led by Nemtsov, Milov, Yashin and Kasparov. One party stands out against the common background, noticeably pro-Kremlin, tame “Right Cause” led by Gozman. Maybe this is the Kremlin’s stake to consolidate liberal forces? The problems confronting these movements are numerous: their leaders lost all credibility by constantly engaging in petty squabbles. Nemtsov, Kasparov and Milov are closely affiliated with some American politicians, which makes them “agents of the West” in the eyes of Russians; they often resort to blatant lies in their criticism of Putin. Even the “Solidarity” program is rife with doctored data. Moreover, the program is a compilation of hackneyed slogans, most of which can be reduced to “More freedom for everyone!” Speaking of Yabloko, it was notorious for being in opposition to every other party and refusing to take seats in the government: they even fired some members for accepting appointment. Although Yabloko is more inclined to social liberalism, its leaders always refused to join forces with other liberal parties; even now, when chances of election are non-existent, its Moscow council dismissed any possibility of cooperation with Solidarnost.

Another appalling trait common in Russian liberal circles is undisguised Russophobia coupled with groveling before a fictitious heavenly image of the West. That just highlights their self-righteousness: unable to assume that something is wrong with them, they confidently blame the Russian people’s “slavish mentality” because those churls don’t vote for them. How dare they? Results so far? A staggering 2.5% of the vote. That means no seats in the Duma for any liberal party in the next elections, and more Dissenter’s Marches.

Government participation in the economy: low, but liberals are trying to step back from market bolshevism. National politics: internationalism and tolerance with a Russophobic slant: mythical Russian fascism is commonly used as a strawman to justify one’s own flagrantly undemocratic or even criminal actions. Territorial integrity: Russia in its present borders. Stance on foreign policy: the West is our savior and our best friend. Sore points: many – unwillingness to admit the wrongs of the 90s’ liberal policies and to receive objective criticism; abject disunity among different opposition leaders; lack of new reasonable leaders with untarnished reputations. Prognosis: hopefully, someone will manage to unite these scattered forces and form a new party capable of providing ideological competition to the “United Russia” colossus.

Marginal groups are the three groups which can be united under this category are radical nationalists, libertarians and anarchists. While their support base is miniscule, they try to make up this disadvantage by the activity of their members, especially chief ideologues. Russia’s current national policy leaves much to be desired, thus giving nationalists the opportunity to gain popularity. Corruption in the police and the government’s unwillingness to deal with ethnic crime result in a bizarre situation, whereby members of ethnic crime groups can get away with almost anything, including even murders. Government officials usually try to ascribe sporadic outbursts of violent fights between different national groups to the activity of “omnipresent” Russian skinheads or label them as domestic crime. But it’s very hard to hush up these cases, and discontent among the people grows. One of the parties that try to capitalize on that is the DPNI, the movement against illegal immigration. Their goal is “protection of the indigenous population’s rights”: although they distance themselves from any fascist organizations, there is much controversy around them. Some liberal activists demand to prohibit the DPNI, but their actions have been mostly peaceful so far (save for the unsanctioned Russian March). Another movement concerned with Russia’s national policy is National Democrats. They propose rather drastic measures: creation of a new Federation consisting of quasi-independent national republics, separation of the North Caucasus and minimal government participation in the economy. It’s unlikely that they will win much support with these ideas, but this movement is very young.

Anarchists and libertarians are in an absolute minority: Russia already had its fair share of anarchy, and the upper middle class – traditional support base for libertarians – isn’t sufficiently developed yet.

Conclusion

It seems that “stability at any price” is practically a commandment in the Kremlin, and the current political scene is designed to provide it. While the KPRF absorbs left-wing voters and pensioners and the LDPR soaks up protest and random votes (Zhirinovsky is a hell of a demagogue, many people vote for the LDPR because he is a “cool guy” or just for the heck of it), the rest of the pie goes to United Russia. Well, and to Mironov’s “Fair Russia”, of course, but who can spot the difference between them, right? Despite both KPRF and LDPR positioning themselves as opposition parties, they perfectly fit into the present political scene. Behold, a managed democracy in action! The United Russia tries to market itself as a conservative party, but it is too bloated: many join the party in hopes of advancing their careers, just like it was with the KPSS. The party seriously lacks any real competition, there were even talks about creating inside the party left and right wings, but they just died away. Considering the new 7% election threshold, The United Russia can bring down any other party, both LDPR and KPRF included, by diluting their votes as it did with liberal parties in the 2007 elections. This makes its rule virtually unchallengeable. Stability is definitely something Russia needs, but that can’t be achieved by sustaining an artificial political system, the present national policy and corruption. The Kremlin has to face these problems, otherwise stability won’t last long.”

Post-reading activities:

1. Find equivalents to the following words/expressions in the text (no specific order is followed): to be too full; to silence smb; to take advantage; power/influence; straightforward/obvious; worthless quarrels; to take control; humiliate oneself; not spoiled; filled with dramatic events; to suppress opposition; to convince and call into action; not covered/not hidden; a big difference; well-known trends/trajectories; postpone; very insignificant/ minor.

2. Comment on the underlined statements in the text.

3. Answer the following questions critically examining the text: What have you learned about the Russian political landscape? What are the strengths and weaknesses in each party’s political platform (bear in mind that each person may have a very different view answering this question)? What evidence in the text points to the author’s position? How can you link the relevance of the author’s arguments to debunking the stereotypes about the Russian political context? What is the difference between the American and Russian party systems?

Topic 4: The role of a leader in politics

Text 1

Pre-reading activity:

1. Consider the choices below as you elaborate on the role of political leaders and your own criteria for support.

I v o t e f o r a p o l i t i c i a n

2. 1) who has a good personality

3. 2) who is married and has a happy family life

4. 3) whose ideas I agree with

5. 4) who has a good education

6. 5) who has no health problems

7. 6) who has worked in Government before

8. 7) who is a worshipper

9. 8) who has specialized knowledge

10. 9) who I think will be a strong leader

11. 10) who is honest

How to be a leader

Michael Korda

( Newsweek on January 5, 1981.)

At a moment when we are waiting to see whether we have elected a President or a leader, it is worth examining the differences between the two. For not every President is a leader, but every time we elect a President we hope for one, especially in times of doubt and crisis. In easy times we are ambivalent – the leader, after all, makes demands, challenges the status quo, shakes things up.

Leadership is as much a question of timing as anything else. The leader must appear on the scene at a moment when people are looking for leadership, as Churchill did in 1940, as Roosevelt did in 1933, as Lenin did in 1917. And when he comes, he must offer a simple, eloquent message.

Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who cut through argument; debate and doubt to offer a solution everybody can understand and remember. Churchill warned the British to expect ”blood, toil, tears and sweat”; FDR told Americans that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; Lenin promised the war-weary Russians peace, land and bread. Straightforward but potent messages.

We have an image of what a leader ought to be. We even recognize the physical signs: leaders may not necessarily be tall, but they must have bigger-than-life, commanding features – LBJ’s nose and ear lobes, Ike’s broad grin. A trademark also comes in handy: Lincoln’s stovepipe hat, JFK’s rocker. We expect our leaders to stand out a little, not to be like ordinary men. Half of President Ford’s trouble lay in the fact that, if you closed your eyes for a moment, you couldn’t remember his face, figure or clothes. A leader should have an unforgettable identity, instantly and permanently fixed in people’s minds.