July 5, 2004

THE CHECK AND BALANCE OF COMMUNISM:

Communists' Slide Weakens Checks on Putin's Power (C.J. CHIVERS, 7/05/04, NY Times)

Beset by internal strife and outmaneuvered by President Vladimir V. Putin, the Communists in Russia are at their weakest point since they returned in 1993 after a two-year ban.

On the surface, their misfortune is a natural decline for a political party still unsure of its way after Soviet times. Any party whose leader declares that "capitalism is death," as Mr. Zyuganov did Saturday, could not reasonably expect widespread success in a society eager for international respect, high-paying jobs and Western goods.

But more deeply, the party's slide toward irrelevance signifies both the ascendancy of Mr. Putin and what analysts describe as the attendant risks of that rise. In one of the stranger outcomes of Mr. Putin's consolidated rule, the Communists, political descendents of Lenin and Stalin, had represented a last chance for a system of parliamentary checks and balances upon which open societies rely.

For now, that chance is gone.

"The Communist Party has become marginalized, and I think democracy as a result has suffered," said Michael McFaul, a political science professor at Stanford University who specializes in Russia.


Please cut out the section of your Great Soviet Encyclopaedia from pages 472-474 on "Fordeyenski, General Yaroslav" and replace it with this article under the new heading "Form over Substance."

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 5, 2004 11:49 PM
Comments

"The Communist Party has become marginalized, and I think democracy as a result has suffered," said Michael McFaul, a political science professor at Stanford University who specializes in Russia.


I am a simpleton with an A.A., but is this statement stupid?

Communists - democracy? They can still vote.

Posted by: Sandy P at July 6, 2004 12:30 AM

Sandy:

It's astonishing. Substitute "Nazi" for "Communist" and imagine any responsible person saying that. Checks and balances are useful, but not at the cost of maintaining a party dedicated to overthrowing the entire system.

Posted by: oj at July 6, 2004 12:36 AM

Having communists vote is like having Saddam vote at the U.N. . He doesn't beleive in voting and in the end simply bribed Chirac, forever destroying the effect of France's veto.

Posted by: Ripper at July 6, 2004 1:48 AM

It's about having a plausible opposition to keep Putin (or whoever is in charge) honest. It's not about the Communists as such, but any organized party. On one level, it's absurd to think that Communists could legitmately fill the role of a democratic opposition, but in practicality they were the only ones actually doing so.

Hopefully, this just means that within 5 years a better opposition force will arise to fill the vacumn.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at July 6, 2004 4:19 AM

Chris:

Yes, that would be elevating the form of checks and balances above its substance.

Posted by: oj at July 6, 2004 8:45 AM

I thought it was the second most demented article the NYTimes has printed in the last week.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 6, 2004 2:20 PM

Daddy-o, you're a gas!

Fordeyenski. Outta sight.

Posted by: G.G. at July 6, 2004 4:18 PM
« COMING UP TO THE HALF-WAY POINT | Main | JOB WELL DONE, SIR: »