This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable
Perspectives

March 10, 2009
Public dissent on the rise in Russia as economy declines

As Russia’s ruble has gone down, protests have shot up.

As Russia experiences its worst financial crisis in a decade, Prime Minister Vladmir Putin has warned the government’s opposition against using the economy to incite protest. 

“We won’t allow events to happen like in some other countries, to which I will not point a finger now,” Putin said. “At the same time, we won’t limit lawful forms of protest.”

Indeed, Russia has seen a number of protests spark across the country in recent months — the largest in Vladivostock, where thousands voiced criticism of the government’s handling of the economy. The Kremlin flew in special forces from Moscow to help quell the protests. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Brian Whitmore writes at “The Power Vertical” blog about growing public dissent, arguing that managing the protests is increasingly difficult for the Russian government.

Dissent Goes Mainstream In Russia

Forty-one percent understand their concerns. Nineteen percent respect their actions. Twenty-six percent are indifferent to them. And seven percent are interested in them.

They are anti-government demonstrators protesting falling living standards in Russia. And a surprising new poll by the Moscow-based Levada Center shows the Russian public warming up to them considerably. Of the 1,600 respondents polled across Russia between February 20-23, a shocking 60 percent say they sympathize with anti-government protests and 23 percent say they are ready to join them.

And check this out as a point of contrast: Asked their attitudes toward pro-government demonstrations organized by the Kremlin, 41 percent said they were indifferent, just 31 percent expressed support, and 11 percent said they were opposed.

The Levada Center has a stellar reputation as an independent polling outfit — and these numbers must be causing some lost sleep in the Kremlin. Speaking to the daily “Vedomosti,” Levada-Center Assistant Director Aleksei Grazhdankin suggested the results show that the public appears to be souring on the authorities:

“I would say that the results of the opinion poll indicate the general mood of society and its attitude toward the government’s anti-crisis policy and the actions supporting it.”

This, of course, means the Kremlin will have  a much harder time marginalizing and discrediting the protesters, as they were effectively able to do in the past. 

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the protests in Vladivostok over a controversial increase in auto-import tariffs were a watershed of sorts in that they attracted a wider cross section of the population, drawing in people who were otherwise not inclined to take to the streets.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user suburbanslice under a Creative Commons license.

bookmark    print

Comments

2 comments

#2

Doesn’t anyone besides me think that the rise in the DOW JONES of one thousand points per month for the last four to six months is a little suspicious. No other economy in the world has risen like that without some justification?

#1

Economic decline, from my experience, usually stems from a decrease in value of the countries number one resources. Government investments in its primary and most important resources can, sometime, increase the value of its economy. From there, government revenues collected by the government from citizens from minor taxes and reinvested in more elaborate marketing schemes can raise national economic revenues through reinvestments. . . .even though its citizens might have to pay a minor tax for certain goods and luxuries. Reinvestments can be used to promote further reinvestments, then the reduction of taxes can ensue. Such initial investments, for example, could be a required transportation ticket, for say, one dollar per person per week, allowing citizens bus transportation to economize travel. The reinvestment scheme could be targeted to further improve alternative methods of travel such as improved railways, trains, trams, and monorails which would additionally give citizens more choices in the future on how to economize travel. A minor tax, like the one mentioned, a required by law one dollar per week bus fair tax, would raise four dollars per person per month to the government equalling about a 3.5 billion dollar government revenue per annum. This 3.5 billion dollar revenue would thus be reinvested in improved transportation infrastructures like the ones abovementioned to further economize travel. Other areas of the economy could be approached in the same fashion.

Facebook Twitter YouTube
TAGS

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2018 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television