Modern Cases:
Catholic Sex Abuse Scandals:
We begin with the beleaguered Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation had already permanently changed the way people in the West thought about themselves and authority figures. The Church has not, and is not likely ever going to regain their control over the literal brains of the world, assuming of course, that it actually wielded that kind of influence in the first place. But modern revelations concerning the conduct of their priests and officials have raised new questions about the Church and it's function and role in society.
Public attention to the molestation of children by Church officials did not reach the public's attention until the middle of the 1980's, even though living abuse cases go as far back as the 1960's. In 2001 lawsuits were formally filed against the Catholic Church in the United States and Ireland, alleging the sexual abuse of minors by Church officials with conspiracies amongst the higher orders of the Church to cover up the affairs and keep them quiet.viii However, in spite of their efforts to keep it quiet, word got out to the general public, and a full blown scandal had erupted. The issues are still unresolved as of 2012, and the Catholic Church, rather than do anything to actively penalize its clergy and take preventative measures against such activities within their own organization. As a result, formerly loyal Catholic nations have been distancing themselves, the best example, being the public denunciation of the Church by the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny on July 20th, 2011.
The fallout from the child molestation cases has been incredible.ix And it wasn't caused by anything that was endemic in the societies in question, like the Protestant Reformation was. This was all caused by the ineptitude of the Church and the Church's officials when it became apparent to them that sexual assaults on young children were prevalent in their midst. And the fallout from these revelations still hasn't been fully realized, in terms of the impact on Church attendance and Church identification. Again, this was not because of anything that was caused externally to the Church. It was caused by the Church, within the Church. And it's been the Church that has paid the bigger price of things in the long and short term, instead of the victims. Just as it did during the Protestant Reformation, when it clung to the ideals of Papal infallibility and all of its abusive and “self-serving” internal practices. It didn't adapt itself to the times. And it didn't adapt itself to the situation in the early 21st century. It's true that we have yet to see the long term fallout from this predicament, as we have seen with the Protestant Reformation. But, that is only a question that time will tell, and it doesn't do us much good to make suppositions about it save those that are made from the present happenings and conditions. But now, we'll leave the Papacy and the Catholic Church to crumble of its own doing, and turn instead to the United States for a time.
The Political Collapse of President George W. Bush:
President George W. Bush was a highly controversial figure during his time as President of the United States. Policies that have come down from his administration, and the Congress which backed it have, indeed, set the United States backwards in the world. He waged two incredibly expensive wars overseas, one on highly questionable grounds and the other with equally disastrous planning and foresight; all while lowering taxes in the United States for the wealthiest citizens and encouraging business to move overseas away from America.x He managed to divide a country that was brought together by the unfortunate circumstances of the September 11th terrorist attacks. And he erected what is, arguably, the largest grabbing of executive and government power that our country has ever witnessed before.
Now, we can debate his legacy. It is, after all, still in effect and still unfolding as we speak for reasons which we will touch upon later in this paper. Suffice it to say that President Bush hasn't been seen much in public, despite being a two term President, and unlike his predecessors: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, remains out of the public's eye. The reasons for this absence from the bully pulpit of being an ex-President are known only to those who are able to be closest to him. And perhaps that's the best way to actually leave it. But it is the case nonetheless. And it's something to be considered by those silly enough to continue down a path similar to his, purely on historical grounds alone. However, this does segway into the next elections in 2008, when the Bush years were put to a real vote, without the pedantic candidate on the Democrat's side.
2008 US Presidential Elections:
The Democrats, admittedly, ran a poor candidate choice in 2004. And because of this, it's difficult to ascertain a) the effectiveness of calling the 2008 Presidential Election as a referendum of the Bush years and b) the capability of the Democratic Party in doing what's needed in the United States versus what's politically convenient in insider terms. But suffice it to say, that Americans were given a democratic choice in 2008 between two candidates and two party's positions. Barack Obama was and is no John Kerry. And John McCain was, at least, no George W. Bush. But between these two candidates a choice was posed for either the status quo or change. And, as we saw after the election was all said and done, change was the option that a majority of voters went for.
The old positions were proving themselves to be ineffective. Therefore, people became more open to changes within the political system. And so they voted out what represented the old system of doing business in favor of the new one, in spite of the risks of bringing in a new person into office. Barack Obama and the Democrats that were brought in to the House of Representatives and the Senate did not bring about the change that was needed. And we'll talk more about that when we get to the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections.
2010 US Midterm Elections:
When the Democrats failed to execute the changes that the voters had voted for in 2008, voters shifted their focus back towards the Republican party. The precise reasons for this, cannot be ascertained accurately through subjective study. There are a multiplicity of different reasons that can be examined as to why each voter chose whom they chose for, and/or chose against the people they did. However, the event nonetheless happened, and the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and some of their control of the Senate. It may be too soon to tell, for history's sake, how and why things happened the ways that they happened in 2010. But the events and the fallout of them are apparent for all to see now in the present. And that is what's being used to base this paper's thesis off of.
What is clear, is that there was discontent amongst the population of the United States with how things were working in Washington and in their state and local governments. And that discontent, for whatever reason, manifested itself in the election results of the 2010 midterm elections. One could point to the inability of the Senate Democrats of getting legislation passed without having sixty votes. Without that critical step in the legislative process, the Democrats' efforts to bring about genuine change in government fizzled out amongst the united tide of Republican opposition. Another reason could be the continued prevalence of interests and lobbying money in government. This was around for a long time in American government. However, it became particularly entrenched following the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January of 2010. The combination of inactivity and additional interest funding probably precipitated the ineffectiveness of the American Congress, which then precipitated the results of the 2010 midterm elections.
But nevertheless, you see how discontent leads to the leadership being removed from their positions of power or, to put it more accurately it seems, their positions of consequence and responsibility. It will take time to untangle the reasons and the wherefores of the 2010 elections (and indeed, of all the modern events that are mentioned in this paper). But let the records show that the Democrats lost the 2010 elections, for whatever reason that can be discussed and argued about, after decisively winning the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, and holding control of all legislative and executive branches of government.
Arab Spring Revolts:
Following independence from European colonialism and protectionism, many Middle Eastern countries found themselves under autocratic regimes governed by virtual and literal dictatorships. Economies floundered under the mismanagement and people lived and died under the repression of the autocrats' agents and secret police. In spite of their military prowess and “control” of things, it all changed dramatically on the 18th of December, 2010 when a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Ben Arous, Tunisia. That single action touched off a fire storm across the Middle East and North Africa that still hasn't subsided. It has led to the overthrows of three major regimes in the region and motivated changes in several other countries to redress long standing social and economic grievances against the regimes in question. Even now, two years later, challenges to the regimes persist in the countries that did not suffer an overthrow. And there is no telling when and how it's all going to end, if it's going to end.
The lesson from these examples, like all the other examples before it, is obvious. When you mistreat and mismanage your population (which includes the economy, society and ecology of the area that's under your jurisdiction), you suffer consequences that could prove fatal to your regime or to your stances on various issues. Nothing that is done in humanity can't be undone at a later date. And that is precisely the lesson that these dictators and autocrats neglected, forgot or simply ignored as they went about their daily business and handling of affairs.
It matters what you do in office to your own population, and there are very real consequences to neglecting these issues and facets of the cosmos beyond what our brains tell us and beyond what our brains hope to accomplish. Were it the case differently, these autocrats would forever be in power and still be living comfortably and in harmony with the rest of the population, rather than being over-turned by them like top soil. But that is not the case, as we have seen throughout history and through events in the modern era. And even in death, their reputations are left open for the public to debate and decide on, to their apparent benefit or loss, depending upon how they governed their territorial state, and how well they met the challenges of that territorial state, for the sake of all others and not just their own.
The Mayoral Elections in the city of New London, CT:
The rules that apply on national levels of governance, also apply at the smallest local levels as well. The city of New London, CT had been governed for decades by a close-knit group of families that had mismanaged and bungled the city and its well being. In 2010 the city switched from a city council system of government to a strong mayor. What is significant about this, is that when the old families ran their favored candidate, Michael Buscetto, in the 2011 election for mayor, he was trounced by a new comer, Daryl Justin Finizio by a two-to-one margin of victory. There wasn't a revolt in the street or any kind of violence what-so-ever in the turn around; mainly due to the fact that it was operating under the auspices of a democratic system of governance. But it did lead to a significant regime change in the city. And the results of this change have yet to be fully experienced and extrapolated upon.
Whether Finizio was the best choice of candidate for New London is not the point of this section. What it shows, again, is these principles of self-interested governing in action, and the consequences for not following it well. What this demonstrates, is that this happens at a micro, local level of governing as well, encompassing everything from the most encompassing legal body of government, to the smallest. This is apart of the human world in which we're living in. And these can be considered laws, akin to those of gravity and relativity; immutable and unchanging throughout the ages, and applicable in all areas of the cosmos, whether we like it or not. And whether our brains think it is so or not. The patterns are already clearly marked out throughout time, space, culture and locality. But there are still two further examples to further complete the pattern of the collective, objective experience that happens in the world, beyond what we think or do to make it work differently than it does.
The Political Fall of Silvio Berlusconi:
Few politicians are able to have the manufactured popularity as Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. His personal bearing and antics won him the acclaim of Italians nationwide and unified the right wing in his favor with his policies and his “bunga bunga” sexual lifestyle. Yet the mismanagement of the Italian state, by the Italian political leadership (Prime Minister and Parliament alike) proved to be caustic to the state of the Italian society, and the Italian economy. The result of this mismanagement, was the removal of Silvio Berlusconi by the Italian legislature, in spite of his popular image amongst voters and manipulation of the media.
In the end, the necessity to remove him from power was seen as being greater than anything he could have mustered from his media empire or personal charm box. All of which, could have been avoided by him, if he had managed things better than he had in Italy. But in the end, it was the apparent master of Italian politik who ended up with egg on his face, as he was removed from office by a vote of no confidence for the effects of his actions while he was Prime Minister. It didn't matter how much influence or power he was able to wield. In the end, it was as simple a calculation of whether the Italian economy and state would fail or not. And the ministers, chose to not fail. That was a choice. And it could have gone either way, in the purest of technical senses. But, for the sake of this paper, let the record show that, indeed, Mr. Berlusconi lost everything that he had gained, as a result of his own actions while he was in office, sex scandals aside. It was not chasing after underage prostitutes that did him in. In the end, it was his own ignorance, his attachment to ideals that don't actually work and his lack of apparent and sincere care or interest in the state of Italy, and its relations with the other European Union countries that did him in. Nothing magical. Nothing mystical. Nothing technically spiritual or faith based about it. It just happened like that. Like all of the other examples. It just was.
The Political Fall of Vladimir Putin:
I can not think of a greater political fall from grace, as that as Vladimir Putin's in Russia in the second decade of the twenty-first century. How it's going to end is completely up in the air at the moment. But it's an interesting example of a leader pushing the boundaries to far, and ending up with an egg on his face as a result of his own actions.
Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia in 2000, following the resignation of President Yeltsin the preceeding year. He's credited for ending the economic and social chaos that entered into Russian society following the collapse of Communism, and the ill conceived attempt at democratization and liberalization that Yeltsin oversaw.xi His methods were in line with the old Communist and, even Tsarist leaders of the past in Russia. Journalists were jailed or killed mysteriously for their investigations, and political opponents were jailed for crimes that many in the top bracket were equally guilty of. But nevertheless, Russia remained together. And in spite of the harsh methods, Vladimir Putin boasted astronomical approval ratings from amongst the citizenry of Russia.xii He won two terms in office as President, serving from 2000 to 2008, and was succeeded by his chosen successor, Dimitri Medvedev. Putin remained in power as Prime Minister to Medvedev, up until 2012. This move has largely been perceived by Russians, and Westerners alike, as Putin remaining in defacto control of Russia, in spite of not President de jur. But what set things in motion in Russia, was Putin's decision to run again for the Presidency, following only one term of Medvedev's less impressive tenure in office.
This decision to run again for office that he was legally unable to take earlier on has outraged untold numbers of Russians. When his party, United Russia, won a majority of seats in an election that was openly rigged, it only further fueled the discontent of Russians, who are now looking for a new leader to replace Vladimir Putin, and not a return to the Tsarist/Communist model of dictatorship.
The precise reasons for this shift in public opinion is varied, and depends upon whom you ask and how you ask, and there still is support for Mr. Putin amongst some Russians. But what is significant, from this paper's perspective, is the fact that Mr. Putin went from a leader boasting 70-80% approval ratings to one facing demonstrations of tens of thousands against his regime, and challenges even from amongst elite military members.
The future of Russia is unknown. There is no telling at the moment how much of the crowd genuinely is opposed to Putin and how many are for him, and there's no telling what anyone is going to be doing at the moment or in the future. But what is plain to see, and has already transpired, is that Mr. Putin has lost most, if not all of his political face in Russia, and the legitimacy of his regime and his ability to hold on to power is in question; paradoxically, because he so desired to hold onto his power, instead of letting it go. His calculation of self-interest proved to be off. And rather than earn himself more power for an increased period of time, he decreased it, through his desire to maintain control over something he doesn't have control over. Russia as a whole, stalls, because it is without a plan for the future beyond Putin. And it doesn't seem like he's going to be a terribly effective option on top of that. Not only is the society impacted by this kind of internal conflict. But the leaders' positions themselves are irrevocably altered as a result of these kinds of calculations and these kinds of moves in the great chessboard of life. And all of this gaming, and all of this power grabbing and manipulation, yields them, in the end, mediocre places in history, and calamities to deal with at home and abroad as objective effects of their objective actions and activities.
Vladimir Putin is not a special case in Russia. He is but one of, perhaps thousands before him, who neglected these principles of governing, and ended in a fizzle or a premature bang, rather than a triumphal ending. It wasn't necessarily their faults for behaving in this way, as we will discuss further. But it does, indeed, seem to be the case judging by the history and the state of current events in the twenty-first century.
Catholic Sex Abuse Scandals:
We begin with the beleaguered Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation had already permanently changed the way people in the West thought about themselves and authority figures. The Church has not, and is not likely ever going to regain their control over the literal brains of the world, assuming of course, that it actually wielded that kind of influence in the first place. But modern revelations concerning the conduct of their priests and officials have raised new questions about the Church and it's function and role in society.
Public attention to the molestation of children by Church officials did not reach the public's attention until the middle of the 1980's, even though living abuse cases go as far back as the 1960's. In 2001 lawsuits were formally filed against the Catholic Church in the United States and Ireland, alleging the sexual abuse of minors by Church officials with conspiracies amongst the higher orders of the Church to cover up the affairs and keep them quiet.viii However, in spite of their efforts to keep it quiet, word got out to the general public, and a full blown scandal had erupted. The issues are still unresolved as of 2012, and the Catholic Church, rather than do anything to actively penalize its clergy and take preventative measures against such activities within their own organization. As a result, formerly loyal Catholic nations have been distancing themselves, the best example, being the public denunciation of the Church by the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny on July 20th, 2011.
The fallout from the child molestation cases has been incredible.ix And it wasn't caused by anything that was endemic in the societies in question, like the Protestant Reformation was. This was all caused by the ineptitude of the Church and the Church's officials when it became apparent to them that sexual assaults on young children were prevalent in their midst. And the fallout from these revelations still hasn't been fully realized, in terms of the impact on Church attendance and Church identification. Again, this was not because of anything that was caused externally to the Church. It was caused by the Church, within the Church. And it's been the Church that has paid the bigger price of things in the long and short term, instead of the victims. Just as it did during the Protestant Reformation, when it clung to the ideals of Papal infallibility and all of its abusive and “self-serving” internal practices. It didn't adapt itself to the times. And it didn't adapt itself to the situation in the early 21st century. It's true that we have yet to see the long term fallout from this predicament, as we have seen with the Protestant Reformation. But, that is only a question that time will tell, and it doesn't do us much good to make suppositions about it save those that are made from the present happenings and conditions. But now, we'll leave the Papacy and the Catholic Church to crumble of its own doing, and turn instead to the United States for a time.
The Political Collapse of President George W. Bush:
President George W. Bush was a highly controversial figure during his time as President of the United States. Policies that have come down from his administration, and the Congress which backed it have, indeed, set the United States backwards in the world. He waged two incredibly expensive wars overseas, one on highly questionable grounds and the other with equally disastrous planning and foresight; all while lowering taxes in the United States for the wealthiest citizens and encouraging business to move overseas away from America.x He managed to divide a country that was brought together by the unfortunate circumstances of the September 11th terrorist attacks. And he erected what is, arguably, the largest grabbing of executive and government power that our country has ever witnessed before.
Now, we can debate his legacy. It is, after all, still in effect and still unfolding as we speak for reasons which we will touch upon later in this paper. Suffice it to say that President Bush hasn't been seen much in public, despite being a two term President, and unlike his predecessors: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, remains out of the public's eye. The reasons for this absence from the bully pulpit of being an ex-President are known only to those who are able to be closest to him. And perhaps that's the best way to actually leave it. But it is the case nonetheless. And it's something to be considered by those silly enough to continue down a path similar to his, purely on historical grounds alone. However, this does segway into the next elections in 2008, when the Bush years were put to a real vote, without the pedantic candidate on the Democrat's side.
2008 US Presidential Elections:
The Democrats, admittedly, ran a poor candidate choice in 2004. And because of this, it's difficult to ascertain a) the effectiveness of calling the 2008 Presidential Election as a referendum of the Bush years and b) the capability of the Democratic Party in doing what's needed in the United States versus what's politically convenient in insider terms. But suffice it to say, that Americans were given a democratic choice in 2008 between two candidates and two party's positions. Barack Obama was and is no John Kerry. And John McCain was, at least, no George W. Bush. But between these two candidates a choice was posed for either the status quo or change. And, as we saw after the election was all said and done, change was the option that a majority of voters went for.
The old positions were proving themselves to be ineffective. Therefore, people became more open to changes within the political system. And so they voted out what represented the old system of doing business in favor of the new one, in spite of the risks of bringing in a new person into office. Barack Obama and the Democrats that were brought in to the House of Representatives and the Senate did not bring about the change that was needed. And we'll talk more about that when we get to the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections.
2010 US Midterm Elections:
When the Democrats failed to execute the changes that the voters had voted for in 2008, voters shifted their focus back towards the Republican party. The precise reasons for this, cannot be ascertained accurately through subjective study. There are a multiplicity of different reasons that can be examined as to why each voter chose whom they chose for, and/or chose against the people they did. However, the event nonetheless happened, and the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and some of their control of the Senate. It may be too soon to tell, for history's sake, how and why things happened the ways that they happened in 2010. But the events and the fallout of them are apparent for all to see now in the present. And that is what's being used to base this paper's thesis off of.
What is clear, is that there was discontent amongst the population of the United States with how things were working in Washington and in their state and local governments. And that discontent, for whatever reason, manifested itself in the election results of the 2010 midterm elections. One could point to the inability of the Senate Democrats of getting legislation passed without having sixty votes. Without that critical step in the legislative process, the Democrats' efforts to bring about genuine change in government fizzled out amongst the united tide of Republican opposition. Another reason could be the continued prevalence of interests and lobbying money in government. This was around for a long time in American government. However, it became particularly entrenched following the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January of 2010. The combination of inactivity and additional interest funding probably precipitated the ineffectiveness of the American Congress, which then precipitated the results of the 2010 midterm elections.
But nevertheless, you see how discontent leads to the leadership being removed from their positions of power or, to put it more accurately it seems, their positions of consequence and responsibility. It will take time to untangle the reasons and the wherefores of the 2010 elections (and indeed, of all the modern events that are mentioned in this paper). But let the records show that the Democrats lost the 2010 elections, for whatever reason that can be discussed and argued about, after decisively winning the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, and holding control of all legislative and executive branches of government.
Arab Spring Revolts:
Following independence from European colonialism and protectionism, many Middle Eastern countries found themselves under autocratic regimes governed by virtual and literal dictatorships. Economies floundered under the mismanagement and people lived and died under the repression of the autocrats' agents and secret police. In spite of their military prowess and “control” of things, it all changed dramatically on the 18th of December, 2010 when a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Ben Arous, Tunisia. That single action touched off a fire storm across the Middle East and North Africa that still hasn't subsided. It has led to the overthrows of three major regimes in the region and motivated changes in several other countries to redress long standing social and economic grievances against the regimes in question. Even now, two years later, challenges to the regimes persist in the countries that did not suffer an overthrow. And there is no telling when and how it's all going to end, if it's going to end.
The lesson from these examples, like all the other examples before it, is obvious. When you mistreat and mismanage your population (which includes the economy, society and ecology of the area that's under your jurisdiction), you suffer consequences that could prove fatal to your regime or to your stances on various issues. Nothing that is done in humanity can't be undone at a later date. And that is precisely the lesson that these dictators and autocrats neglected, forgot or simply ignored as they went about their daily business and handling of affairs.
It matters what you do in office to your own population, and there are very real consequences to neglecting these issues and facets of the cosmos beyond what our brains tell us and beyond what our brains hope to accomplish. Were it the case differently, these autocrats would forever be in power and still be living comfortably and in harmony with the rest of the population, rather than being over-turned by them like top soil. But that is not the case, as we have seen throughout history and through events in the modern era. And even in death, their reputations are left open for the public to debate and decide on, to their apparent benefit or loss, depending upon how they governed their territorial state, and how well they met the challenges of that territorial state, for the sake of all others and not just their own.
The Mayoral Elections in the city of New London, CT:
The rules that apply on national levels of governance, also apply at the smallest local levels as well. The city of New London, CT had been governed for decades by a close-knit group of families that had mismanaged and bungled the city and its well being. In 2010 the city switched from a city council system of government to a strong mayor. What is significant about this, is that when the old families ran their favored candidate, Michael Buscetto, in the 2011 election for mayor, he was trounced by a new comer, Daryl Justin Finizio by a two-to-one margin of victory. There wasn't a revolt in the street or any kind of violence what-so-ever in the turn around; mainly due to the fact that it was operating under the auspices of a democratic system of governance. But it did lead to a significant regime change in the city. And the results of this change have yet to be fully experienced and extrapolated upon.
Whether Finizio was the best choice of candidate for New London is not the point of this section. What it shows, again, is these principles of self-interested governing in action, and the consequences for not following it well. What this demonstrates, is that this happens at a micro, local level of governing as well, encompassing everything from the most encompassing legal body of government, to the smallest. This is apart of the human world in which we're living in. And these can be considered laws, akin to those of gravity and relativity; immutable and unchanging throughout the ages, and applicable in all areas of the cosmos, whether we like it or not. And whether our brains think it is so or not. The patterns are already clearly marked out throughout time, space, culture and locality. But there are still two further examples to further complete the pattern of the collective, objective experience that happens in the world, beyond what we think or do to make it work differently than it does.
The Political Fall of Silvio Berlusconi:
Few politicians are able to have the manufactured popularity as Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. His personal bearing and antics won him the acclaim of Italians nationwide and unified the right wing in his favor with his policies and his “bunga bunga” sexual lifestyle. Yet the mismanagement of the Italian state, by the Italian political leadership (Prime Minister and Parliament alike) proved to be caustic to the state of the Italian society, and the Italian economy. The result of this mismanagement, was the removal of Silvio Berlusconi by the Italian legislature, in spite of his popular image amongst voters and manipulation of the media.
In the end, the necessity to remove him from power was seen as being greater than anything he could have mustered from his media empire or personal charm box. All of which, could have been avoided by him, if he had managed things better than he had in Italy. But in the end, it was the apparent master of Italian politik who ended up with egg on his face, as he was removed from office by a vote of no confidence for the effects of his actions while he was Prime Minister. It didn't matter how much influence or power he was able to wield. In the end, it was as simple a calculation of whether the Italian economy and state would fail or not. And the ministers, chose to not fail. That was a choice. And it could have gone either way, in the purest of technical senses. But, for the sake of this paper, let the record show that, indeed, Mr. Berlusconi lost everything that he had gained, as a result of his own actions while he was in office, sex scandals aside. It was not chasing after underage prostitutes that did him in. In the end, it was his own ignorance, his attachment to ideals that don't actually work and his lack of apparent and sincere care or interest in the state of Italy, and its relations with the other European Union countries that did him in. Nothing magical. Nothing mystical. Nothing technically spiritual or faith based about it. It just happened like that. Like all of the other examples. It just was.
The Political Fall of Vladimir Putin:
I can not think of a greater political fall from grace, as that as Vladimir Putin's in Russia in the second decade of the twenty-first century. How it's going to end is completely up in the air at the moment. But it's an interesting example of a leader pushing the boundaries to far, and ending up with an egg on his face as a result of his own actions.
Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia in 2000, following the resignation of President Yeltsin the preceeding year. He's credited for ending the economic and social chaos that entered into Russian society following the collapse of Communism, and the ill conceived attempt at democratization and liberalization that Yeltsin oversaw.xi His methods were in line with the old Communist and, even Tsarist leaders of the past in Russia. Journalists were jailed or killed mysteriously for their investigations, and political opponents were jailed for crimes that many in the top bracket were equally guilty of. But nevertheless, Russia remained together. And in spite of the harsh methods, Vladimir Putin boasted astronomical approval ratings from amongst the citizenry of Russia.xii He won two terms in office as President, serving from 2000 to 2008, and was succeeded by his chosen successor, Dimitri Medvedev. Putin remained in power as Prime Minister to Medvedev, up until 2012. This move has largely been perceived by Russians, and Westerners alike, as Putin remaining in defacto control of Russia, in spite of not President de jur. But what set things in motion in Russia, was Putin's decision to run again for the Presidency, following only one term of Medvedev's less impressive tenure in office.
This decision to run again for office that he was legally unable to take earlier on has outraged untold numbers of Russians. When his party, United Russia, won a majority of seats in an election that was openly rigged, it only further fueled the discontent of Russians, who are now looking for a new leader to replace Vladimir Putin, and not a return to the Tsarist/Communist model of dictatorship.
The precise reasons for this shift in public opinion is varied, and depends upon whom you ask and how you ask, and there still is support for Mr. Putin amongst some Russians. But what is significant, from this paper's perspective, is the fact that Mr. Putin went from a leader boasting 70-80% approval ratings to one facing demonstrations of tens of thousands against his regime, and challenges even from amongst elite military members.
The future of Russia is unknown. There is no telling at the moment how much of the crowd genuinely is opposed to Putin and how many are for him, and there's no telling what anyone is going to be doing at the moment or in the future. But what is plain to see, and has already transpired, is that Mr. Putin has lost most, if not all of his political face in Russia, and the legitimacy of his regime and his ability to hold on to power is in question; paradoxically, because he so desired to hold onto his power, instead of letting it go. His calculation of self-interest proved to be off. And rather than earn himself more power for an increased period of time, he decreased it, through his desire to maintain control over something he doesn't have control over. Russia as a whole, stalls, because it is without a plan for the future beyond Putin. And it doesn't seem like he's going to be a terribly effective option on top of that. Not only is the society impacted by this kind of internal conflict. But the leaders' positions themselves are irrevocably altered as a result of these kinds of calculations and these kinds of moves in the great chessboard of life. And all of this gaming, and all of this power grabbing and manipulation, yields them, in the end, mediocre places in history, and calamities to deal with at home and abroad as objective effects of their objective actions and activities.
Vladimir Putin is not a special case in Russia. He is but one of, perhaps thousands before him, who neglected these principles of governing, and ended in a fizzle or a premature bang, rather than a triumphal ending. It wasn't necessarily their faults for behaving in this way, as we will discuss further. But it does, indeed, seem to be the case judging by the history and the state of current events in the twenty-first century.
No comments:
Post a Comment