Notwithstanding the result of the Spanish election that David so poignantly blogged about yesterday, one thing that the commentators note is the turnout. Apparently, the extra 3 million voters who turned out to vote were spurred by the terrorist attacks and disgruntled by the Aznar government’s handling of the information in the aftermath. It transpires that the popular opinion in Spain was against supporting the US in the conflict with Iraq and the country’s participation in the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
The BBC commentators have a field day – the ‘power of democracy’ has been demonstrated and the Spanish voters have chosen a socialist government. It don’t get better than that. It is a dream come true.
Oh, wait. The Russians have elected its President. In an extraordinary and widely predicted result, the former KGB agent crushed his closest rivals by securing 70 per cent plus of the vote, according to preliminary exit polls:
Russians overwhelmingly turned their backs on western-style democracy yesterday, voting for stability and a strong hand at the helm by giving four more years in office to President Vladimir Putin.
Although there was a small chance of under 50 per cent turn out, the Russians were forcefully encouraged to exercise their democratic rights, or else:
Officials are trying to bolster interest with patriotic advertisements showing Soviet-era rockets blasting off and glossy pictures of model Siberian mines. Others exhort parents to vote for the sake of their children.
Some officials have used bribes, threats and other schemes. Last week hospitals in the far eastern city of Khabarovsk put up notices saying they would refuse to treat patients who could not prove they had registered to vote in hospital.
So in one country we have a socialist government taking over as a result of democratic elections that were influenced by terrorist attack whose horror is still fresh in the people’s mind. In another, an overt authoritarian has cemented his already powerful position for another four years. I doubt very much that either election was determined by anything resembling rational discourse. No, I am not naive and do not expect every single voting decision to be rational or even sensible, however, the events of yesterday point to the other extreme.
[Retiring back to his cave, mumbling something about “emotionally incontinent” times…]
In the midst of the flag-waving, chanting, rockets and horns, one of the Spanish Socialist faithful admitted: “After eight years, it’s like a dream.”
Yes, a dream for the BBC for sure. But some dreams are also nightmares.
A shining moment in the history of democracy, when a record number of Spaniards shouted “We surrender!”
On balance, if Aznar’s government hadn’t come out with the politically convenient “It *must* be the basques” with very little evidence to back them up, they might not have lost. This blatant bit of cynical politicking around with a national tragedy lost them the election, & fair enough. I would’ve been outraged if I was a Spanish voter.
Plus, the terror-stopping effect of the Iraq invasion, whether you deem it right or wrong, has yet to be demonstrated, so I don’t see why pulling out of Iraq is “giving in” to any terrorists. As was pointed out in a previous thread, a vast majority of the Spanish population were against taking part in the first place; their opinion will now be reflected by the government. Whether this happens to align with Al Quaida goals is neither here nor there; it makes no more sense to do exactly what Al Q don’t want you to do than it does to do exactly what they want you to do; either is allowing them to set the agenda.
A_t – As far as letting the terrorists win, the problem is not in electing a socialist government, nor in their policies post election. The problem is that the polls supposedly predicted a handy win for the PP before the bombing and they got plastered after it.
A large number of Spaniards announced to the world that a bombing will change their electoral preferences. Terrorists will now analyze this and start to try to predict how a bombing of x scale y days before an election will cause their goals to be advanced. If results had been absolutely in line with polls prior to the bombing, there would be no point to bombing in future to try to change election results. The tactic would have failed and no further tweaking would have created a success.
Just a few decades ago, the idea that the Spanish or Russian people could go to a polling place and cast their ballot in a relatively free and open election would have seemed like a fairy tale.
Regardless of the results of any particular election, assuming that Putin isn’t going to turn into Stalin tomorrow, what does matter is that whole populations whose parents could not vote in any meanignful way are now being engaged in the ongoing drama of democratic processes. We may not be thrilled with their choices any more than they are with ours.
The key point to keep in mind is that they are making choices now, where none were allowed only a short time ago. This is progress in a very real sense, indeed, the only true form of progress that matters. All the material and technological advances of modern society mean little to a cow in the barn. It is still just cattle, a possession to be cared for so it can be milked.
These overnight, tabloid headline judgements on everything that happens must be seen for what they are—shallow, and often irrelevant, characterizations based on a superficial analysis.
That whole societies are expressing their will at the ballot box, when they used to be in bondage, now that is a development of truly historic porportions. If the Spanish and Russians have chosen poorly, they will know soon enough, and, one hopes, be allowed the chance to correct the mistake by a new election.
Such is the ebb and flow of the democratic process.
What is interesting is that the same Spaniards who were opposed to sending troops in Iraq because they believed there was no connection between that country and al-Qaeda, now want to bring the troops back because they see an obvious connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda….
Sylvain — quite right. Something that should be filed under Cake, Having and Eating, Impossibility of. Still, that’s the sadly predictable response of committed leftists who would have voted for the socialists in any event. My own especial scorn is reserved for those who would have voted PP but changed their minds because they stupidly believed appeasing the terrorists would make them go away. These voters are probably the ones who threw the election to the socialists and almost guaranteed more election attacks will occur in Spain and elsewhere.
I’d respond further to Gabriel’s post, but I detect the glint of a hook in the (admittedly delectable) bait.
veryretired: but what is so great about voting per se? If the plurality in Russia see the only reasonable option on offer is being an authoritarian former KGB officer, then I really fail to see what the cause for satisfaction is. I just cannot see why people get so misty eyed about choosing which group of mafiosi gets to provide your ‘protection services’.
I stayed home and didn’t vote for Putin because I’m tired of seeing him on TV and because I don’t want to show him support for his recent decisions.
But after listening to the European and American haughty lecturing about how immature it is to vote for autoritative KGB Soviet Communist who crashed dissent, I almost regret that I hadn’t voted for him.
Who do you want to vote us for? Liberals? Gee, thanks. Vote for them yourselves, if you’re not tired yet. However, I don’t think there are that many fans of Kerry and Kennedy here.
Communists? That’s who Eastern Europeans are wont to vote for. Their Communists are ‘reformed’, which means that they can easily claim that they have no responsibility for their parties’ past. Our Communists cannot claim such waiver, so they have to be as unapologetic as possible. So they are excluded also.
Nationalists? Thanks, but not. I’m not a fan of Jewish Conspiracy theories.
Conservatives? But it is Putin.
Libertarians? Some of them are with the Liberals, most of them are with Putin. They haven’t form their own political movement.
It’s funny to see how those who had just praised ‘democratic revolution’ in Georgia where the President was ousted by riots and another was elected getting 95% of vote are now carping over Putin’s 70%.
It is almost as funny as watching liberals, communists, and nationalists bitching on live TV every day about their being gagged.
I’m not Russian, merely an observer of the Russian scene out of interest and out of a feeling of brotherhood for fellow Orthodox.
I agree with Mike. Putin is the only realistic candidate in Russia. The liberals are too weak and devided. The nationalists are nutbars. The National Bolsheviks in the Russian Communist Party would probably side with Osama bin Laden.
Its not much of an option, but if I were Russian I would probably vote for Putin as well.
AlQaida (or is it ETA??) terrorists have have won their first European Election.
It just cost 10 bombs, a van with “evidence” and 200 lives.
The terrorists may be smiling but not on television like the new spanish Prime Minister.
The attack is similar to the Canary Wharf attack by the IRA before the 1996 UK elections.
we expect more election bombings.
Mike Tyukanov: you are rather making the same point… my guess is most Russian voted for Putin because there really was no alternative, not because most Russian are bonkers. Hence my remark about how I really cannot get all too excited about democracy in Russia is that is what it boils down to. But then by the sound of it, you probably feel much the same way yourself.
What the election looked like for an insider http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/15/19179/9758
I don’t get misty eyed very often, and never over politics, but I also have gotten over the youthful exuberence of the inexperienced which demands that everything be just right all the time, from the very beginning, or it’s all a big failure.
There are plenty of chicken littles running around pointing to the sky. The fact that the Russian election wasn’t up to your admittedly stratospheric British standards is unfortunate, but does not negate the value of the development of Russian political affairs from the former totalitarian system to the present attempts to engage in democratic processes.
The same can be said for the Spanish election. These are people who have only recently won the right to vote in actual elections of any kind. Perhaps if they live long enough, they will be priviledged to choose between candidates as eminent as the bunch we have to choose from in the UK or the US.
Churchills and Lincolns don’t come down the pike all that often. Most of us have to make do with lesser choices than we would like. The point of the exercise is to move the process toward the side of freedom and individual rights a little bit more each time.
It took the concerted efforts of collectivism’s followers over more than a century to get us where we are. It may take nearly that long to undo the damage. I can understand impatience, but the petulent response of saying to hell with all of it is self-defeating. It is your family, your children and theirs, which will live in the results of what we do now.
Moing it towards the side of freedom and individual rights? Why do I get the feeling that the opposite is what it is all about?
In short, the point of the exercise is to delay the slow degradation of freedom and rights over time via the power of the (stupid)masses through the voting booth.
I think Wobbly pretty much has it right, more’s the pity.