Oleg Kozlovsky, writing on Robert Amsterdam‘s blog:
On 5th November the world’s attention was drawn to American presidential elections and the victory of Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Russian authorities used this day to declare an unprecedented reform in the country’s recent history—changes to the Constitution. Dmitry Medvedev in an annual address to the houses of the Parliament suggested that the presidential term should be increased from 4 years to 6 years and the Duma’s term—to 5 years.
There is no doubt that Medvedev’s “suggestion” will be regarded as an order by members of Parliament. They have already responded to his speech and expressed readiness to vote for any Kremlin’s amendments to the Constitution. A referendum on this issue is not required, so adopting the new legislation will be easy and quick. Some deputies have even said that Medvedev’s current term may be prolonged till 2014 instead of 2012 (and Duma’s till 2012 instead of 2011). Later and rarer elections will somewhat ease the Kremlin’s fear of an “electoral revolution”—its worst nightmare since the uprising at Kyiv Maidan.
The changes, if passed, will become the first amendment to the Russian Constitution since it was adopted on a referendum15 years ago. Medvedev’s predecessor, Vladimir Putin, has always been repeating that the Constitution doesn’t need any changes. He preferred to simply ignore it: when he abolished elections of regional governors, submitted the Parliament to himself, technically introduced censorship and political repression, violated independence of courts and property rights. But some things still couldn’t be changed without amending the Constitution, like the length of president’s term or the two-term limit. As usual with KGB, Putin didn’t do the dirty part of the work himself, he used Medvedev instead.
Ironically, the first changes to the Constitution were suggested by the person elected to his office at the staged and fraudulent elections that lacked even minimal legitimacy. Then they are to be approved by the undemocratically elected Duma lacking any real opposition and then by the Council of Federation whose members haven’t been elected at all. To add to this picture of cynicism, this is done while praising the Constitution and its standards democracy at a pompous celebration of its jubilee planned for 12th December.
The plans to change the Constiution were immediately condemned by the opposition and don’t seem to be popular among regular people. The emerging united democratic movement Solidarity called Medvedev’s actions illegitimate and antidemocratic. The Other Russia coalition plans to hold a Dissenters’ March in December that will demand that the Constitution remains untouched. People who discuss the issue on the Internet and in the street also criticize the changes. The government, however, prefers to ignore the public opinion.
As the opposition candidate in the USA receives congratulations on winning presidential elections, Russian ruling elite shows once again that it’s not going to pass power to anybody else. Comparison of Russia’s first amendment to the Constitution to the American First Amendment perfectly symbolizes that development of democracy here has gone terribly wrong.
sorry if i change the issue.
Have seen tv-program about Francoise Sagan today. Then my mum said that this writer and her first novel ‘Buongiorno,Tristesse’ ( and all her other books as well) was banned in the former USSR.
I wondering, why? Sagan was not political.
Because of morality? But the Soviet was an atheistic state and sexual moral use to be connected to religion.
Why so innocent writer as F.Sagan was banned in the Soviet?
The countries with state-sponsored religions (Nazism, Communism, Islam, even Catholicism in Italy and Ireland) always saw sexual freedom as competing ideology. If you read Sagan, your thoughts are distracted from divinity (fuhrer, general secretary or God). And soviet ideology rivals any religion in its fight against heresy.
Love your site, by the way :)
Soviet Union was not an atheistic state, it was a teocratic state, the religion being communism, and the dogmas being whatever the Politburo proclaimed as such. Sometimes the religious fervor went so far as to claim that “there is no sex in the USSR”, as a participant of a joint soviet-american live TV show once declared.
It goes back to the dogma of Stalinism. Yes, the Soviet Union was an atheistic state. But Stalin created the policy of the “good socialist family”, modeled after the “good christian family”, therby unleashing his anti-sex witchhunt. In fact, Diego Rivera, a Mexican muralist and Communist activist went to Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. He said people there were “f*cking like rabbits”.
You forgot to add the USA to your list. Its one of the most sexophobic societies on the planet.
“there is no sex in the USSR” ?
My finnish dad was working in Moscow in 70s , he ses that Kenia was a sunday scool in comparing with USSR in 70s