Kiselev - the leaders and the people's adoration

30 January in Krasnogorsk, Moscow region Vladimir Putin visited the control Center of the Moscow region. There, the President talked with the developers of regional and municipal Internet resources for feedback with citizens. One of the questions concerned the now widely discussed amendments to the Constitution.

– We are discussing the amendments that you have proposed to the Constitution. And residents during these discussions raise a question: if in February, the State Duma adopts the amendments, and in the spring will be discussion and a vote, what’s the point in voting and in the question if already the State Duma will make the decision?

– Indeed, those who ask this question, not without a certain logic, they know that the amendments to the Constitution, if they do not affect first and second sections or the ninth, are accepted quite complex but still in the law provided by the order, which suggests that it is sufficient to pass a vote in the Duma, the Federation Council, and to collect the required number of positive findings, the positive solutions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. All — after this law was adopted, and the President signs it. But if you paid attention when I talked in the letter about these amendments, that they were needed, I said that after all they are significant, and I believe that in order to take effect, the usual procedure in this case is not enough. We need people to come to the point of this vote and said they want these changes or not, the citizens of our country actually were the final authority that takes the law on amendments, or rejects it. And only after people have their say, I will sign or won’t sign. That’s all, — said Vladimir Putin.

In the question itself — in the sequel unfolded in Russia discussions about the changes to the Constitution. Strange, but you can hear that Putin changes the Constitution for themselves, in order to remain forever. But WHAelite, the proposed amendments just take away some of the powers of the President, for example, responsible for the formation of the government passes the state Duma and the Federation Council is more responsible for the personnel of the power unit. Moreover, Putin proposes to limit the powers of the President to two terms, removing the word “consecutive” and thereby removing all the nuances.

At the same time, answering questions and even direct requests to extend his powers, Putin said the triple “no” in three different classrooms. The first of Putin’s “no” came at a meeting with veterans in St. Petersburg, when the Admiral Klimov suggested not to limit the term of the President in power. Had passed.

the Second “no” was the answer to the question about the possibility of Russia’s transition to a parliamentary Republic. The President asked at a public meeting in the city of Usman of the Lipetsk region.

And the third “no,” Putin said in the company of students in Sochi after the offer to become mentors of the future head of state following the example of the Creator of the Singaporean miracle Lee Kuan yew.

“different countries have different situation, different history, different culture. We have, if there was some kind of institution over the President, it will mean nothing else than a duality, is an absolutely disastrous situation for a country like Russia,” — said the head of state.

Meanwhile, the working group on preparation of proposals to amend the Constitution slowly working, the deputies and senators too. There was no rush. These changes are slower than the Constitution itself in 1993. Then a referendum on it hastily combined with a vote in the state Duma, i.e. the Parliament, the same Constitution was written.

the society is also the debate goes on as usual. The vote in April. Everything seems logical, the state and political institutions are strengthened, power is distributed, there is a big responsibility among the parties and the Parliament, the President hll guarantor, remains a strong presidential power. The state Council again becomes stronger.

All the way. But I would venture to speak in dissonance. In Russia the role of personality in the history of all time was much better than when I was taught in the textbooks on Marxism-Leninism. In historical materialism the person nominated by the masses as the historical needs of the masses. Like, what are necessary requirements, a person history a la carte and pushes on the top of the wave. And then she – the person — by the will of the masses takes the historical order. But it is in the Marxist-Leninist theory, which in practice proved to be unsustainable.

In Russian history, that no person, different era. The era may be short. For example, the era of Gorbachev. Some six years was enough to destroy the Soviet Union. On a second! But when Gorbachev came under the slogans, which initially captured almost all. Rebuilding! Publicity! Fresh sound. And inspired. The process has begun. That is the role of personality.

the Process turned into not only the collapse of a great country, but also tens of millions of lives: one in the coffin who — long journey as a refugee or a completely new and unfamiliar role at home. Mass impoverishment.

But Yeltsin came on a wave of adoration. The first in Russia’s history democratic direct election of the President. Also era. In nearly a decade. The worst result in the final. Even humiliating for Russia, although the West — continuous praise and humanitarian aid in the trucks. It hurts to remember. The birth rate then slipped to a level lower than when the German Nazi occupants. Yeltsin wanted hood? No. Better wanted. And sincerely. It is one thing to want and another to be able. Something could, but the whole country a terrible degraded to half — life — and Putin picked it up at the point of no return.

And if you look, for example, in neighboring Ukraine? Original popular leader does not guarantee its quality. Outright fool, for example showed recently the first President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk. Referring to some documents, he said that Stalin and Hitler met in Lviv.

“Hitler and Stalin, met in Lviv. The same document, it is not a secret. They tried to negotiate,” — said Kravchuk.

When it is completely cornered with evidence that there was no meeting, Kravchuk said, “in some newspaper read”, but added: “What, now not to trust anyone what?” In fact, this and the quality of management, Ukraine: from Kravchuk trajectory of the country went down.

However, back to Russia. Another question in dissonance. We have been in the history of ever to helm one by one to the row were progressive and strong leaders? Well, to be honest? And us now being on tenterhooks adventure to look for? But if on the newcomer, by whom and how we are now so inspired? To think it is necessary. Of course, the debate continues, but it and discussion to Express opinions, after all, the vote is still ahead.

Text: “News of the week”