Georgia has participated in the Eurovision only twice before. So when Georgia pulled out of this year’s contest yesterday, I felt bad for it. But what is the deal with all the hypocrisy?
Here is what MSNBC quotes Georgia’s representative as saying:
“Our song … does not contain political statements and the public broadcaster is not going to change the text of the song and refuses to go to competition in Moscow,” the head of production at Georgia’s state broadcaster, First Channel, George Chanturia, told a news briefing.
Many countries in the past expressed and enforced their political views through using or banning popular music. National anthems are composed to sound grand and solemn to inspire patriotism. The Russian’s use of the old Soviet score for theirs was a definitive political choice. But politics and music intertwine more often than an average Russian hears the anthem: Presidential candidates everywhere enlist pop singers to campaign for them. Western Ukraine banned playing songs in Russian in public places a few summers ago (all other languages were fine). The Beatles were banned in the USSR at some point — as a propaganda tool of the “decaying capitalism. I have seen North Koreans study Britney Spears CD’s as a way of learning about America’s culture.
There is nothing wrong when a band from a country that feels oppressed performs a song that claims they don’t want a president of the oppressing country. I mean, North Korea does it with George Bush. Wait, that’s a bad example. All similar ones I can think of right now were written by the Communist propaganda masters.
Anyway, there is also nothing wrong when that song gets distributed worldwide through the wonder that is YouTube. But it is somewhat strange when that song gets entered into a competition that is supposed to be non-political by nature, that will be held in the ‘oppressing country’s’ capital, — and when the official representatives claim it is clearly non-political and act all indignant.
If there were no rules in place that ban songs of political nature to be performed at Eurovision, I would not mind ‘We Don’t Wanna Put In being performed this year. Freedom of speech is a jus cogens to me. Truth be told, Eurovision is a very politicized events, and the way voting is structured allows countries to block against other countries etc.
Judging aside, from a political scientist viewpoint, I think that this song situation did not work in Georgia’s favor. Georgia knew what the rules were, it knew that everyone would hear ‘Putin,’ not ‘Put In’, it could probably predict the song would be banned by the Eurovision organizers. I would guess that it was looking for some sort of political martyr reputation, but instead, it came across as being petty. Georgia just needs a new political strategist.
]]>The song’s title is “Mamo,” which is how one addresses one’s mother in Ukrainian. It’s a regular sentimental song, but at least it’s not politics-laden. Now, that’s refreshing.
The best part of Russia’s choice is that the lyrics were written by an Estonian, and the music was composed by a Georgian.
Here is the song:
Here is a link to a YouTube video of what I think is a TV screen record, with the actual performance.
Although I can’t be bothered to look up the statistics (I am on the spring break, after all), I believe around 13% of Russians, myself included, are actually ethnic Ukrainians. A Ukrainian has as much of a right to represent Russia as a representative of any common ethnicity in Russia. As a Russian-Ukrainian, I am absolutely ecstatic (plus Eurovision falls on my birthday this year).
I was semi-expecting more political gestures at this year’s Eurovision, but this is actually a gesture of goodwill. Take that, Georgia.
]]>In 2007, Ukraine’s Verka Serduchka sang what s/he claimed to have been “Lasha Tumbai” (a meaningless combination of sounds, really), but everyone heard “Russia, Goodbye.”
In 2008, Russia responded with Dima Bilan, who sang alongside an Olympic golden medalist Yevgeniy Plyushchenko to the accompanying Hungarian violist Edvin Marton. Dima Bilan became the first Russian to have won the Eurovision (Ukraine has two victories under her belt).
As the preparations for the 2009 contest are on the way, things are getting political. While most countries have not held the qualifying finals for their participants, Georgia announced its candidate, the band Stephane&3G that was specifically tailored to enter Eurovision. The country has only been participating in the Eurovision since 2007. Here are some of the lyrics:
We don’t wanna put in
The negative move
It’s killin’ the groove
There is a really awesome YouTube video of this song:
It certainly has a Eurovision winner potential: it is catchy, clearly inspired by American pop bands, and it has three girls with an exotic accent in tight PVC tops and mini-shorts. And it mentions drinking moonshine. That, along with the song’s message, will probably guarantee it many votes from the amused Western Europe and Russia-hating Eastern European countries.
Ironically, this year’s Eurovision will be held in Moscow (Russia’s Dima Bilan won last year), so “We Don’t Wanna Put In” will sound even more provocative. If the Eurovision organizing committee does allow this song to be performed (there were questions raised as to its appropriateness), I wonder what the Kremlin’s reaction will be.
I can see why the Georgians are so tongue-in-cheek regarding their behemoth neighbor, but that’s a petty way to deliver a protest, isn’t it? Georgia, if you are still mad over Abkhazia and Ossetia, go to a court of law, not the performance stage.
]]>With financial gloom dominating Davos, the Israel-Palestine hysteria, and people being laid off by the thousand worldwide, Ukraine and her problems were virtually ignored. While Eastern Europe is whispering about the nearing economic collapse, the most relevant entry about Ukraine’s economic collapse that a Google search in English produces are dated 1993 and 1998, when the economy was truly going down the drain. It looks like 2009 will also join the ranks.
I will not bore you with the details of all the economic troubles Ukraine is facing. If interested in details, read this Jan 19 report, and make all the bad indicators even worse. Then add the constant fighting between President Yushchenko and premier Timoshenko; subtract the non-functioning government. Can anyone say “imminent collapse”?
There was something that drew my attention a few days ago, but I was too busy writing countless applications to blog about it. A story surfaced in the Russian and Ukrainian mass media about a report supposedly written by Ukraine’s finance minister Viktor Pinzenik. In brief, it augurs the nearing collapse of Ukraine’s economy.
Drawing from my own politics-related experience in Ukraine, a fake report to scare the population and intimidate the government would not surprise me. But it was never properly denounced by the Ukraine’s government.
For any interested speakers of Ukrainian, there is a photograph/scan of the report here. After several pages of sad economic stats and a lot of pathos (if someone indeed faked it, they put a whole lot of effort in it), the report concludes with:
An excerpt from what is believed to be Pinzenik's report
“The country is in danger. The citizens are in danger. (Political) power is not an award. It is first and foremost responsibility to people. I would like to emphasize one more time: there is a way out of the current difficult situation. But we are almost out of time…”
There are also rumors that Rada’s (Ukraine’s parliament) employees, including the MP’s, is behind on the salary payments for this month. For all I know, it might be just rumors, but it sounds likely to be true.
As a Ukrainian, I am very upset about Ukraine’s future.
As a political scientist, at least I get to benefit from studying how “dirty” political technologies are used to undermine an opponent in the game of politics.
Although I hope that the report above and all the rumors are not true, it is quite certain that Yale’s poli sci department is probably the safest place to observe Ukraine’s government failures.
]]>A few Putin-related things happened at Davos: his surprisingly amicable opening speech (very different from the infamous Munich one) and what all the American/Western newspapers gladly labeled a “huge fight” with Michael Dell.
Well, it’s time to practice your Russian, comrades.
Dell asks the very obviously annoyed Putin: “How can we as an IT sector help you broaden the economy as you move out of the crisis and take advantage of that broad scientific talent you have?”
I am not defending Putin, but if I were a leading woman of the powerful nation who could easily leave Europe freezing and attack/defend myself from a neighboring country, I would be annoyed, too, it a chairperson of the computer company not well-known in my country offered me what sounded like his help.
(I am aware that Dell is the second-largest computer maker in the world. I also believe that the IT has a huge potential to broaden any country’s economy. Technology in general has a great misunderestimated potential in politics, economics etc. Russia also needs some IT improvements. I also don’t know what kind of translation Putin heard from his interpreter, but — see the explanation below — presumably not an excellent one. BUT for Michael Dell to ask a question like that to a leader of the country where any big company is viewed as potential government property has a high explosive potential.)
The simultaneous translation has Putin say this: “We don’t need help. We are not invalids… We don’t have a limited mental capacity.”
He actually said this: “You know, the trick is that you don’t need to help us. We are not disabled. Those who really need help are the poor, one needs to help people who help limited capabilities, one needs to help the retired, one needs to help the developing countries…”
The transcript is published here. For the Russian speakers, here is the same thing in Russian:
“Вы знаете – фокус заключается в том, что нам не нужно помогать. Мы не инвалиды. Реально нужно помогать бедным, нужно помогать людям с ограниченными возможностями, нужно помогать пенсионерам, нужно помогать развивающимся странам…”
This YouTube video has it starting at 1:24. The Russian that is heard in the background sounds like precisely what was published.
The main message of his response was that Russia needs not help, but a full-scale partnership. I believe that I heard from many a Yale professor that one of the main reasons of Russia’s aggressive behavior is that for too many post-Soviet years it was looked down at. I agree. Russia needs her respect. And better translators, apparently.
]]>Schelling proposes a solution: to get a third arty to come in and act as an arbiter. A ‘bystander’ is interested in helping the drivers solve the situation — mostly to save her own life from a dynamite explosion (let’s say this bystander can’t run or walk away). The drivers are somewhat rational; they don’t want to los their lives, so they want some solution. It’s just that they can’t reach one themselves.
Russia and Ukraine are the ‘truck drivers.’ Europe is the bystander aka the ‘third party.’ Of course, Europe is not going to die in a gas explosion, but not getting enough natural gas is pretty bad for it.
As both a Russian and a Ukrainian, I have no desire to judge which country is right or wrong. I have been watching the situation, and it has been pretty predictable so far. I expected President Sarkozy to be negotiating the situation, but he seems to have found himself a more exciting conflict to work on. Well, whoever acts as that ‘bystander,’ I hope that Schelling was right about a dynamite truck situation being totally solvable.
NB: Check out Steve LeVine’s wonderful explanation of the problem.
]]>
Several months ago, before the oil prices began plummeting, I read an article somewhere that left me confused. It was in a well-respected publication — Foreign Affairs, I believe — and written by a serious author. It claimed that if oil prices go below $25/barrel, Putin’s incredible approval ratings will slip, and the leadership of Russia might change. There were other serious articles in serious publications estimating that number to be $4o or even $5o. As I see it, the logic behind these prognoses was as follows : if the inflow of petrodollars stops, the Russians will lose jobs, earn less, not be able to pay their mortgage etc. People will be angry. And they will aim their anger at Medvedev and Putin, ending their almost unconditional support for them.
Now that the oil prices are hovering at $40, it is a good time to analyze these statements and to post factum claim they were incorrect . Oil prices haven’t reached $25/barrel yet, but Russians have been laid off en masse (the unemployment rate went up more than 1% since September, from 5-something% to 6-something%), and there are government agency projections of over 250 thousand more losing their jobs in the first quarter of 2008. Who knows how many more are going to lose their jobs after that? Many companies switched to 4-days workweeks. They cut salaries, and cancelled their employees’ free gym memberships. People are panicking. With the dollar and euro exchange rates going up, it is challenging to find either kind of currency in many provincial cities. Everyone wants to buy foreign currencies to avoid losing much money if the ruble becomes drastically devalued.
Yet, Putin’s approval rating are stellar. And I believe they will remain that way.
Political cycles of the Western world — economy gets worse, the incumbent has fewer chances of getting re-elected, so a new leader steps up, lather, rinse, repeat — do not apply to Russia. The Russians are simply not used to such mode of thinking. Historically, the vast majority of population was in the state of continuous pauperization under the czars. In the USSR, most people were not starving, but not rich, either; they were all equally poor. In the early 90′s, under Yeltsin, food was often rationed. His approval ratings were never impressive, but he did win his second election and had the nation elect the man he hand-picked as his predecessor.
Yeltsin was almost impeached in 1999, only a year after the tough August crisis of 1998. But economic problems were only one of the five charges against him. The impeachment never went through, although it did contribute to Yeltsin eventually resigning. When Yeltsin assumed power, the economy was bad to begin with, and he did not produce any successful or popular reforms. In fact, many people were in doubt whether it was a good idea for the USSR to collapse: breaking up the USSR was another impeachment charge against Yeltsin.
Back then, Russia had an ageing president with serious health and alcohol issues. He had to undergo a seven-hour heart surgery while in the office. To make fun of the videos of him inebriated was a common pastime for stand-up comedians and regular citizens alike. He kept sacking prime ministers and making puzzling decisions, never bothering to explain them to the country. Putin in many ways is the exact opposite. He is athletic, well-dressed, relatively young, and a non-drinker. It easy to assume that someone who is ill and struggles to speak in public and to explain his choices makes poor decision. Likewise, it is easy to trust a control-wielding president who clearly explains his political choices and practices knocking down judo opponents for fun.
But that is not the major difference between Putin and Yeltsin.
Putin gave Russia a direction in which to move. After the USSR collapsed, general population was very confused. In the USSR, people played by the rules, albeit hypocritical and nonsensical ones. In public, one praised the Party; in private, one listened to the Beatles and read books by the dissidents. If one wanted promotion, a new apartment, imported furniture, one knew whom to bribe.
And all of a sudden, it was all over. No one knew what to do, what to say, what to believe in. Even religion, the common last resort at times of upheaval, was foreign and semi-forgotten. The most talented artists, musicians, professionals went to great lengths to immigrate. With fifteen new states, many found themselves having to cross a border to visit friends and family. While some struggled to find morals, some abandoned them altogether and entered the capitalist world of making money.
The charismatic leader who stood on the tank and promised a better future turned out to be as confused as the rest of the population. It was the dark ages of the Russian history, condensed into less than one decade. And then came Putin, and it was a renaissance.
He brought along positive economic changes. Russians began traveling and learning foreign languages. No one had to queue for hours to get regular consumer goods. The gap between the center and the periphery was still drastic, but even the periphery was doing better. The political scientists’ assumption that Putin will stop being so popular is all that is taken away makes sense. But there is something else that Putin achieved.
Russians now know who they are. They take pride on being a strong country that is feared by many states. Nationalism is a way to go. Orthodox Christianity is respected, and churches attract flocks of new believers. To name kids with traditionally Russian names is now a good idea. To memorize the anthem and have a Russian flag is an even better one. Everyone knows in what to believe: Saakashvili needs a sedative, Yuschenko needs a retirement, guest workers need one-way tickets home.
The West finds many of these trends disturbing. But the Russians are not about to give up their new-found identity in exchange for the Western concepts of personal freedoms — that Russia had never had anyway. Putin is a part of that identity, and it would take much more than extra-low oil prices to surgically remove him from it.
There is another ace up Russia’s ruling duo’s sleeves. Since the crises’ first symptoms were diagnosed in the US, the Russian media were successful in equaling the US in general to the root cause of this crisis.”So, how is the US doing? They are guilty of this crisis, aren’t they?” Many Russians feel that the crises is just a continuation of the US’s idée fixe is to destroy Russia.
To be fair, there are articles describing problems with other states’ policies and their contribution to the current global financial crisis, but somehow, they don’t stick with the general population. Anti-American authors and politicians are attracting a lot of attention (check out this Wall Street Journal article about a Russian academic who claims that by 2010, South and North Carolina will be a part of the EU).
This trend of anti-Americanism causes a great deal of the rally effect — people uniting against one enemy. It was successfully used by the post-Soviet states: accuse Russia of all your present troubles, and you got the population supporting you like crazy. Now Russia is using it for its own purposes: to shift the blame to the US, shall if be needed. How can you blame the prime-minister for the crisis, if it the US’s fault anyway?
In 1998, right before the crisis, the government went out of their way to promise nothing really bad would happen to the country’s economy. When the economy collapsed, people felt disappointed and betrayed, just like they did for centuries. Now that the country has leaders who are not afraid to admit 2009 will be difficult, Russians are not about to let go of them.
]]>
When I started my freshman year, the presidential campaign was already going on, so I have been exposed to it as much as most Americans. After I found out I had to pay taxes in the US, I have been obsessively following the tax policies of both candidates. Like most foreign Yalies I know, I watched presidential and vice-presidential debates. So much for the fresh perspective.
So I asked the real outsiders — my friends who live outside the US.
The vast majority of my Russian and Ukrainian friends and acquaintances — the younger crowd — would vote for Barack Obama if they could. But in general, the older Russians get, the more they like McCain. An average Russian man hardly lives to be 60, so a 72-year old candidate is an inspiring role model to many. “I wish my husband was so lively” — my friend’s grandmother said of her 72-y.o. husband. “What foreign policies? I don’t care what those capitalists are doing.”
I quizzed my 20-something Obama-favoring friends on their rationale. In a surprising correlation with their college majors, they explained what aspects of the democratic candidate’s tax, education, healthcare, and foreign policies they favored to those of McCain. And then something else came up: Obama is oh-so-glamorous (“a он ничего такой, очень гламурненький”).
Russia is all about glamour. What is known as ostentatious in other countries, is every-day wear in Russia. Mini skirts and high heels are equally worn to class, work and parties. Some restaurants have special side tables for the It Bags. Several haute couture brands have more boutiques in Moscow than in London or NYC. Books that teach girls how to marry an oligarch are bestsellers. And politics has been becoming more glamorous, too.
Our President’s recent video blog post (and yes, he has one!) spurred demand for the stylish Mac laptops: he clearly prefers them to the good ol’ PCs. He was even spotted playing with his iPhone before they became legally available in Russia. Our ex-President-turned-prime-minister has video of him doing judo all over YouTube (and pictures of him with a naked torso that show off his muscles; he is in a great shape). The Ukrainian prime-minister is known for her hairstyle and fancy outfits as much as for her policies.
No wonder Barack Obama with his tall and slim frame, well-fitting outfits and an elegantly-clad wife is a favorite with Russian women.
To be fair, Sarah Palin is also perceived as glamorous. A stereotypical Russian woman wears stiletto boots and furs in the winter, and Palin gives off an image of someone who could totally pull it off. Her recent $150K worth of a shopping spree is definitely approved by the Russian women (she even managed to do it with someone else’s money, a dream of a stereotypical glamour girl). She is in a great shape and wears fashionable clothes. Her four — or is five? Most Russian women lost track (or lost Track. Ha!) — kids raise some well-waxed Russian eyebrows. But of course, a true glamour girl has a glamorous reason to have kids — “Ah, I get it — she had so many fashionable pregnancy clothes that she wanted to become pregnant again and again to be able to wear them!”
If Barack Obama wins, as most my friends hope, they will take great pleasure in praising his and his wife’s looks at the inauguration and beyond. If that happens, Sarah Palin shouldn’t give up. She should simply move to Alaska’s behemoth neighbor. Her glamorousness guarantees a huge success. After all, we all know she is already an expert on Russia.
]]>
This post is way overdue, but better late than never.
At Pierson College’s Master’s Tea, Latvia’s ex-President Vaira Vike-Freiberga participated in a talk with the crowd constisting mostly of Yale grad students and professors. A couple of Russian undergrad students, including myself, were present.
In Russia, Dr. Vike-Freiberga is usually portrayed as a stern, anti-Russian leader who made miserable the lives of many Russians living in Latvia. I went to that meeting hoping that maybe Russian media actually exaggerated their portrayal.
Dr. Vike-Freiberga is a very charismatic, well-spoken lady who seems to be able to make the audience happy. In the beginning, she talked a lot about Latvian history and of it being annexed and occupied by the USSR. Most Russian media disagree with that, but I believe she absolutely right describing the Soviets as ruthless invaders. The USSR (NOT Russia) did invade Latvia. But a side note: isn’t’ this how most of the world history is made anyway?
Dr. Vike-Freiberga’s hostility towards USSR/Russia is sadly based on her country’s history in general and her family’s history in particular. At the same time, Russians suffered just as much (and, as one of the guest who was siding with the Latvians admitted in a private discussion after a talk, Russians had suffered much more). Her family was escaped to Germany to avoid the Nazis; my grandfathers, both in Russia and Ukraine, were killed in the concentration camps.
During her two terms at the office, Latvia joined the EU and NATO – which is a big achievement for a post-Soviet country. Well that’s all warm and fuzzy and the audience was feeling happy for a small nation re-gaining its national sovereignty and pride.
Things got heated when the issue of the Russians in Latvia was raised. 20% of the Latvian population are Russian. Many never learned a word of Latvian, because they simply never had to. Everybody (including ethnic Latvians) spoke Russian in the USSR, of which Latvia used to be part. Schools and universities were taught in Russian; office and government work was done in Russian. Latvian was one of the official national languages of the USSR — along with Russian. Any Russian speaker has as many rights to speak Russian in Latvia as he did to speak Latvian. Most preferred Russian though, since it was a lingua franca of all fifteen republics of the USSR. In many mixed Russian-Latvian marriages, Russian was a language of choice for spouses and children.
These days when Latvia is a sovereign state, there is a clear attempt on the government’s part to oust Russians and Russian speakers out of the country. This campaign was largely initiated by Dr. Vike-Freiberga, who (coincidentally, of course) possesses an interest in linguistics and Latvian folklore.
Now, in order to obtain a job, the Russians have to pass what Dr. Vike-Freiberga referred to at that meeting as ” a minimal language proficiency exam.” She also claimed that “if someone lives in a country, they should speak a language of that country.” That “minimal” exam requires fluency in a language. And most developed countries have either no state language (e.g., the U.S, where people manage to live without speaking a word of English and where speaking Spanish is often an essential skill for employment in some parts of the country), or state programs that allow immigrants to learn the language (Germany, Israel, you name it).
Interestingly enough, after my questions to Dr. Vike-Freiberga, several Yalies approached me to discuss the issue. Russia was often portrayed as “the evil one” in this case, but many Yalies changed their understanding of the matter after that meeting. Yay for breaking stereotypes!
]]>
A friend recently posted this on my Facebook wall:
Your capital city is quite beautiful
I watched the president taking his oath yesterday, it was quite interesting. Do you think he will try and remove Putin from power at some point or will let him complete his term as PM?
Now, this is an interesting question. Ever since Medvedev was elected, there was a feeling there are two presidents in Russia. There were and are numerous pictures of Mr. Medvedev by Mr. Putin’s side. They seem to form the most harmonious political tandem I have ever known.
Historically, a Prime Minister is a position of no real political power in Russia. The dynamics of the PM-president relationship will doubtlessly change now that Putin is a PM. I believe that the constitution somewhat limits PM’s power, but constitutions can be changed.
Duocracy, however, is unprecedented in Russian politics. There have always been “gray cardinals,” but it is difficult to believe Putin will agree to be one. However, I doubt President Medvedev will attempt to oust Mr. Putin. Medvedev does not appear to be power-thirsty enough to so. Putin is also older and more experienced than Medvedev. The latter is 55 and used to work as a spy, which, I would imagine, provides one with a lot of useful life experience for a politician; the former is 42 and was “just” trained in law. It seems that Mr. Putin can be a valuable adviser to Mr. Medvedev (unfortunately, mostly in how to make Russia autocratic).
To make Mr. Putin a PM was part of Medvedev’s presidential campaign. There were rumors that it was only a fake promise to attract voters, but the promise was been fulfilled today. Vladimir Putin is announced to be a Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. There is certainly at least one positive side to it.
Russia is a huge country and one of the problems that politicians face is that one leader is not enough to keep everything under control. I am not a fan of Putin’s, but I have to admit that corruption has decreased since he was elected 8 years ago. Russia is not as chaotic anymore. Who knows, duocracy may actually benefit the country and keep thing more civilized and organized.
I am more than confident that tomorrow both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin will be watching the Victory Day parade side by side on the Red Square. Welcome to the world of duocracy.
]]>