Talk:Sovereign democracy

It seems that from the opening statement onwards, this article is misleading. Please find below two self-explanatory quotes (with special attention to their dates):

“…the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people is indeed to decide their government by democratic choice, to produce that stability and therefore that prosperity in the country so that Iraq can be a fully sovereign stable democracy.” (29.11.2004 Press conference by Tony Blair and Iraq’s deputy PM Barham Salih. at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6681.asp )

“President Bush’s vision provides for an Iraq made secure through the efforts of Iraqis. ...If we fail to recreate Iraq as a sovereign democracy sustained by a solid economy we will have handed the terrorists a gift.” (Statement as Prepared for Delivery by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III Prepared for the House International Relations Committee. September 25, 2003. at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_hr/brem0925.htm )

It is indeed rather annoying to read a very short text that starts with the words "this term was first used in 2006 by Vladislav Surkov" and ends with a phrase that starts with words "at first this term was used by the government of Taiwan" sometime in the 1950s.

From the academic point of view, democracy is that particular political system where sovereignty - the sole and exclusive right to make political choices and decisions, or "to give the law" - is with the people, as opposed to a monarchy where the king is the sovereign, or to a dictatorship where sovereignty is with a dictator or a junta, etc. In that sense, the term "sovereign democracy" definitely has redundancy in it. However, today, the term democracy is also widely used to designate a nation that is politically organised in such a way that sovereignty is with the people or its elected representatives. A nation can be sovereign or not, depending on whether or not it governs itself freely, at its own discretion, without any kind of interference, pressure or influence from the outside. So it is when we use the term "democracy" in that particular sense that "sovereign democracy" becomes a perfectly valid definition. See above Tony Blair and George W. Bush fully agreeing with this interpretation.

Given all the above, I cannot see how the article in its present form could be edited. A neutral, academic explanation of the stage at which a democracy can be considered as sovereign has very little to do with the latest widely publicised arguments between Russian and Western political elites, and everything with political philosophy's notions and concepts. Pohjalainen (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I just translated the article, and did not 'improve' upon it. I do agree with what you are saying Kinkydarkbird (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be, unfortunately, even more reasons to be unhappy about this article. Let’s assume for a moment that Wikipedia does welcome contributions that explain not notions and concepts but ongoing political arguments between different groups of interest (since that is exactly what the article in its present form does). Well, even in this unlikely event the article is still very misleading. It does offer quotes, pro and con, that are supposed to reflect the essence of the debate. But they do not. The debate was actually very strongly biased because of political and economic interests involved, and on both sides notions and concepts were “twisted” to serve whatever needs of whoever was speaking up. As a more than obvious example: Masha Lipman (quoted in the article) writes a monthly column in The Washington Post and is the editor in chief of a political magazine in Russia, under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation. Does she – a more than well qualified professional – honestly believe that “sovereign democracy” is indeed of “Kremlin coinage”? I hope not, if only for the sake of her academic credentials. To better understand the true essence of that debate, in my mind, one should pay much better attention to what was actually said and written, and by whom. Again, an example.

Robert Amsterdam is the American lawyer whom the principals of YUKOS retained to defend their case against hostile actions by the Russian government regarding this oil company (YUKOS’s take-over was and remains the main symbol used by all prominent critics of Putin’s government of Russia). Follows what Mr Amsterdam had to say (italics are mine): ”The arguments behind sovereign democracy are only deceptively complex - in truth it is nothing more than a long conversation that goes nowhere… and concludes that democracy for Russia needs to be adapted to serve Russia's needs - a total bastardization of the very principle, and a euphemism for authoritarianism and repression. As the Financial Times writes: What Mr Surkov calls "sovereign democracy", [is] roughly translatable as "We'll do it our way". The baffling incoherence of sovereign democracy is based in that fact that while it rejects isolationism, it also refuses to engage in any kind of transnational structure or community of nations. While Russia is happy to trade, own property, and powerfully influence policy outside its own borders, it is deathly afraid of submitting itself to anyone else's rules. Moscow is trying to order globalization a la carte, when in fact it is a prix fix. ...”Surkov's sovereign democracy is… a convenient rationale to ignore international norms and practices in diplomacy, business, and human rights.” (Robert Amsterdam. The Imperial Swagger of Sovereign Democracy. 

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2006/10/the_imperial_swagger_of_sovere.htm )

As can be seen, the thrust of Mr Amsterdam’s main argument is structured around the notion of “democracy” as a nation-state with a democratic political system, not around the original “democracy” as a political system for a nation which is discussed and supported by quotes in the article. Is Mr Amsterdam, then, trying to shift and twist the subject to suit his own ulterior motives? Apparently not. On the contrary, unlike Masha Lipman, he seems to be right on the spot (and incidentally he does not claim that “sovereign democracy” is of “Kremlin coinage”; he is a professional lawyer after all). There follows proof that Mr Amsterdam, not the others, is indeed arguing about what is at stake. Mr Surkov has penned an article, “Nationalization of the Future”, in which he detailed his understanding of the kind of sovereign democracy that he wished for Russia. He said (please forgive me my translation if it is poor; italics are mine):

“By simply coming into being the global fruits of learning (economic, informational and military instruments of globalization) bring not only hopes for universal prosperity but also a temptation to achieve global domination. … …any excessive concentration of material means that allow total control and destruction, total production and consumption, total manipulation and corruption leads to total (totalitarian) authority. And therefore to irreparable injustice and disappearance of freedom. This is most unwelcome in any given country and absolutely unacceptable on a global scale. By keeping a democratic order (i.e. in which diversity prevails) in our country, its citizens retain the capacity to protect their own rights and incomes by contributing to the maintenance of a balanced diversity in the world. In doing so their imperative would be to abandon forever any hegemonistic ambitions, but also to prevent anyone else from acquiring them; to be always on the side of the community of sovereign democracies (and of a free market), and always against any form of global dictatorship (and monopoly); to turn national sovereignty into a factor of just globalization and democratization of international relations.” http://www.expert.ru/printissues/2006/43/nacionalizaciya_buduschego .

I would not claim that this exchange of arguments between Mr Amsterdam and Mr Surkov is what all the debate was all about. But it seems obvious to me that this is exactly where the controversy between the opponents really starts. To better understand what kind of controversy it could be, please read the quote from an article written by George Orwell in 1947 (italics are mine):

“James Burnham's book, The Managerial Revolution, made a considerable stir both in the United States and in this country… As shortly as I can summarise it, the thesis is this: Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralised society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of "managers". These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organise society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established. The new "managerial" societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom. ... … For quite fifty years past the general drift has almost certainly been towards oligarchy. The ever-increasing concentration of industrial and financial power; the diminishing importance of the individual capitalist or shareholder, and the growth of the new "managerial" class of scientists, technicians, and bureaucrats; the weakness of the proletariat against the centralised state; the increasing helplessness of small countries against big ones... If totalitarianism triumphs and the dreams of the geopoliticians come true, Britain will disappear as a world power and the whole of Western Europe will be swallowed by some single great state. This is not a prospect that it is easy for an Englishman to contemplate with detachment. … An American does not have to make the same choice. Whatever happens, the United States will survive as a great power... Most Americans who think of the matter at all would prefer to see the world divided between two or three monster states which had reached their natural boundaries and could bargain with one another on economic issues without being troubled by ideological differences... It is, therefore, not surprising that Burnham's world-view should often be noticeably close to that of the American imperialists... It is a "tough" or "realistic" worldview… …the notion that industrialism must end in monopoly, and that monopoly must imply tyranny, is not a startling one.” (George Orwell. James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution. : http://www.george-orwell.org/James_Burnham_and_the_Managerial_Revolution/0.html )

As you can see, it looks very much like Surkov did not “invent” anything new at all, and simply borrowed – almost word for word - from what George Orwell was saying some 60 years ago (and so many others before and after him). Since Orwell was what we would call today a leftish social-democrat, or a socialist (he himself added “democrat” with the sole purpose of distinguishing his politics from those of Stalin, whom he vigorously condemned), one could say, maybe, that the argument (which this article about "sovereign democracy" attempts to explain) is actually a modern continuation of the old socialist vs imperialist debate thyat we would call today protectionist social-democrats vs neo-liberal globalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohjalainen (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=="This kind of approach serves to advocate a scientific basis for the theory of Sovereign democracy."== I do not understand Sovereign democracy could be studied scientifically but as for a basis no more then any other system . I think the term Democracy in Sovereign democracy is like Socialism in National Socialism (Nazi) in both they serve as a basis to obscure the truth the National Socialist believed the means of production were for the Gov. to wage war similary Sovereign Democracy uses democracy to not scare the EU when it starts to move backwards (invade small countries and take territories) Chechnya Ossetia.