< SWITCH ME >
Vladimir Putin has been officially inaugurated as the new President of Russia, again. But is the country he is about to lead the same as it was when he stepped away from power in 2008? How do young people in Russia perceive Putin now and what does his re-election mean for the perspectives of their country? E&M asked two young students from St. Petersburg to give us their opinions in a two part series of interviews:
Oleysa Fedorenko was born in St. Petersburg in 1991. She studies both Tourism and Hotel Management and Conflict Resolution at Saint Petersburg University of Humanities and Social Sciences. She has spent time in Germany during an exchange semester at Fachhochschule Ludwigshafen.
E&M: Before and after the elections, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to show their frustration. Why do you think that was?
OF: People were angry because everyone knew they didn't vote for United Russia, they saw the fraud and it was horrible for them. In general, Russian people can be patient for some time, but when something like that happens they get a kick start and then they go to demonstrations. I think their most important demand was a re-run of the elections, but I can't say precisely.
E&M: Did you participate yourself?
Two years have passed since the tragic plane crash in Smolensk. 96 people, including the ruling President Lech Kaczyński and former President of the Polish Government in Exile Ryszard Kaczorowski were killed. We still do not know exactly what happened. At the moment, only one person - the head of the Polish Government Protection Bureau - has been officially charged.
There are dozens of stories about the tragedy. Some claim that it was an assassination orchestrated by Russia, others would like to see the infamous President, assisted by a drunken Polish general, as having ordered the pilots to land despite dangerous circumstances. Some saw it as a metaphysical symbol or a chance for a re-birth of the old-fashioned Polish republican values, while others warned against the demons of Polish tribal nationalism that would be awakened during the mourning period. Finally, there were also people who wished that it could be some mystical chance for a new beginning in relations with Russia. To be honest, I can hardly see any of those narratives as being meaningful.
What is clear to me is that Poland lost its best president since 1989 and many important figures of public life. Other facts are no more positive. As was shown in the Polish Supreme Audit Office's report, since 2005 no VIP flight involving Polish officials has complied with legal safety standards.
No Romani, Poles, Romanians or Bulgarians allowed
Written by Ziemowit JóźwikA few days ago I finally finished reading The Native Realm. A great book by Czesław Miłosz that is highly-recommended for anyone who claims to be European. "The native Europe" (which seems to be a more accurate translation) is a fascinating memoir and an intellectual walk along the meandering European paths of the 20th century. But this is not going to be a glorifying review of a brilliant book - although I do encourage you to read it. I'm referring to Miłosz for a rather less optimistic reason.
Last week European public opinion was once again bewildered by Geert Wilders (we all know this flamboyant platinum blond "statesman"). This time his Party for Freedom (PVV) launched a website where Dutch people can file complaints against immigrants from "Middle and Eastern European countries." The complaints are going to be presented to the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment.
Once you've entered the site and recovered your eyesight after being dazzled by Wilders's shining mane, you'll see giant headlines from Dutch newspapers: "Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians – increasingly criminal," "Eastern European gangs in villages" or "Problems with Poles" and a story about some supermarket with misspelled Polish names (of course). The text underneath is even better. "The massive labour migration leads to many problems, nuisances, pollution [sic!], displacements and housing problems (…) Have you ever lost a job to a Pole, Bulgarian, Romanian or other Eastern European? Do you have problems with Eastern Europeans? We'd like to hear."
On Sunday, January 23rd 2012, the Croatian referendum backed accession to the European Union. In 2013 it will join as Member State Number 28. But what is being described as a "historic decision" by Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic attracted less than 44% of Croatians to use their democratic voting right. Simultaneously, the Eurozone Crisis still dominates media coverage nearly every weekday and the narrative favoured by the media makes European enlargement appear unreasonable. Indeed, welcoming Zagreb into the EU doesn't just provide opportunities. There is work to do, in particular to prepare the Croatian economy for the EU market.
Of the 43.67% of Croatian people who cast their vote, about 66% were in favour of EU membership. Politicians and analysts have tried to find several explanations for this low voting outcome, arguing for a low participation of the Croatian diaspora, the current Eurozone crisis and an election surfeit after recent parliament elections. The reality is probably a combination of all three.
Even former General Ante Gotovina, now imprisoned for crimes in the Croatian War for Independence, voted in favour of EU accession. He explained his decision in a manner reminiscent of what Austrian journalist Adelheid Wölfl called a "return to normality." According to her research, many Croatians feel historically connected to Europe. For them, EU membership seems to be a logical step to overcome the terrible time of the Balkan conflicts and to seize their deserved role within the heart of Europe.
More...
As the new year began, tens of thousands of Budapest's residents rallied against the politics of the Hungarian government. Prime minister Viktor Orbán, once "a national hero," who was supposed to offer Magyars "a new social contract" is now more well known as 'Viktator', "a disgrace for the nation." The main European newspapers don't usually pay too much attention to this beautiful country over the swirling Danube but now seem unable to publish an article without mentioning 'the destruction of democracy' and the 'violations of the human rights' perpetrated by the governing Fidesz party at the moment. The Hungarian Forint exchange rate is at its lowest level since the turn of the century. This is a bitter sign of the state's nosediving economy.
Quite a lot of things to face for one nation, even one so experienced in surviving "the rough ages" (as it says in their passionate national anthem).
The most controversial act of the Hungarian government so far is the implementation of the new Constitution. For some (including the author) it contains some inaccurate provisions. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that the previous constitution was dictated by Stalin in 1949 and then only partially changed in 1989 (by the undemocratic assembly of the day), and was the subject of constant political violations during the last 20 years. In the light of these facts any critics should be a bit more careful. To me it seems that the new "Hungarian basic law" doesn't necessarily lead the country towards an autocratic regime.
I cannot agree with new E&M author Simon's opinion a few days ago that the absence of the word 'republic' in the new (or the old, in fact) name of the country means the restoration of monarchy. When it comes to the President's right to dissolve parliament it's the same in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland; and we are not claiming these countries are under tyranny.
Countries aiming to join the European Union need to guarantee their demonstration of functional democratic governance. In Hungary, an EU member since 2004, citizens are experiencing a fading trust in their government's commitment to these democratic values. The EU needs to put pressure on the government in Budapest, not just to prevent social and political tension in the country but also to maintain Europe's identity as a pioneer of democracy.
The right-wing party Fidesz led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has continuously taken advantage of its two thirds parliamentary majority after its victory in the 2010 elections. Hungary’s democratic framework was initially shattered when Fidesz passed a law to create a supervisory body named the media council that controls all public and private media. This body can censor content and impose fines on media for being “politically unbalanced”, yet it is filled with Orbán’s allies. For many newspapers, the media law means the death of press freedom in Hungary.
The new Hungarian constitution, in force since January 1st 2012, doesn’t require intensive reading to spot the changes. The former Republic of Hungary is now simply called Hungary. With the absence of the word “Republic”, the government has abandoned its earliest history of democracy since 1989. Besides this formal change, the constitution allows the president to dissolve the parliament if a budget is not approved and it limits the powers of the constitutional court. The government is now also able to appoint members of the central bank of Hungary thereby strongly bringing the independence of this institution into question too.
I recently took part in a survey gauging opinion after the Eastern Partnership (EaP) Summit held in Warsaw at the end of September. Two of the three possible answers were overwhelmingly negative, whilst the last one was extremely positive. It struck me as dumb. Even though I really like westerns, such a black or white description does not adhere to “the EaP reality” at all.
What did the Summit achieve? First of all, it contradicted the popular thesis that because of the Arab spring, the EU has stopped engaging with its Eastern partners. In fact, I would argue that thanks to the Arab insurgents, the EU leaders have understood some of their previous mistakes (e.g. too cordial fraternisation with authoritarian rulers). According to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Review presented by the enlargement and neighbourhood policy commissioner Štefan Füle in May - the EU's “new response to a changing neighbourhood” should be based on concepts such as “deep democracy” and “partnership with societies”. This is perhaps a clear sign (and surely a bitter lesson of the Union for the Mediterranean's failures) that EU leaders have comprehended that their partners (in the East as well as the South) shouldn’t be understood as the undemocratic governing elites but rather the people: civil societies, NGOs, non-state actors etc present in civil society .
There have already been some signs of change in the EU’s actions – like almost doubling the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights’ (EIDHR) budget (only in the EaP region though). Furthermore, the European External Action Service (EEAS) has added its two pennies worth with the idea of the Civil Society Facility and the Endowment for Democracy (finally!) that aims to support NGOs, the rule of law and good governance practices in the EaP states. Although the last summit failed to notice the importance of non-state actors despite the Civil Society Forum’s (CSF) several requests to be invited to the official meeting.
Two European topics have dominated the Polish election. The first was the next EU budget – the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 which will be a key factor in modernising the Polish infrastructure in coming years. A topic which of course also shimmered on the Poles' TV screens. The second, somehow suggesting itself and linked to the previous one, is how Poland should react to the current financial crisis in the EU and the dynamics which it has catalysed. It is clear that the fact that Poland is currently presiding over the European Council right now has urged a greater focus on European considerations in this campaign.
Not wanting to interfere too much in the politicians' joyous film making that I talked about earlier I preferred to talk to a few young political and social scientists to get some answers about the role of the European questions in the ongoing Polish parliamentary campaign.
IN -1106 DAYS
