And… the elections season around the world… who choose the wrong rules?

 By: Contribution for Syrializm

 

The first recorded instance of an election in the world dates back to ancient Greece, specifically in Athens.

Athens is often considered the birthplace of democracy, and the practice of holding elections as a means of selecting leaders and making decisions within the government originated there, as the Athenian democracy allowed male citizens to participate in decision-making through a system of direct democracy, where they could vote on laws and policies in the Assembly, as well as elect officials such as magistrates and strategoi (military generals).

These elections were a fundamental aspect of Athenian democracy and set a precedent for future democratic systems around the world.

Although the Greek culture might be considered eastern, however the western civilization is always considered the Greek culture part of his culture, because Greece is in Europe, well… kind of Europe if it might be.

Fast forward, moving to Roman time, when the ruling system generally is considered despotism, but they used to have a “congress and senate,” so they had a form of democracy.

And thus, the Roman democracy along with the Christian “Papal State” are considered the main pillars of the western civilization; It is true that Christianity today in the West has no value, except perhaps in name, especially with the disappearance of the influence of the Papal Church at the end of the medieval era and the occurrence of the Lutheran-Protestant schism, whether in Europe or in Britain.

In our current era, the West has positioned itself as a protector of democratic values, with its readiness to interfere in any way in the affairs of others, to pressure the implementation of democratic values, but the irony appears if those democratic values represented by holding free elections produce entities, personalities, or parties.

The West simply does not want to in dealing with it, despite its arrival through the ballot boxes.

The controversial problem between the East and the West is that reaching the appropriate model of democracy is a matter linked to the history and legacy of each nation, as it is illogical for countries like the United States, which exterminated the indigenous population, fought a war of independence from Britain, and then a civil war mainly caused by slaves liberation, with dozen assassinated presidents, to arise.

Today, this country, whose founding is no more than 246 years old, wants to impose what it wants on nations and peoples whose history and civilization are thousands of years old!

We just want to remind the Europeans that Hitler and Mussolini came to power in their countries through democratic means, according to Western terminology.

After the cold war era, at the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and its allies have often positioned themselves as champions of democracy, seeking to promote democratic values in the post-Soviet states.

However, the methods employed in this endeavor have been subject to scrutiny and criticism, particularly in relation to the escalation of socio-political contradictions during the preparation and conduct of elections.

The United States, along with its Western allies, has consistently advocated for democratic reforms in post-Soviet states, emphasizing the importance of free and fair elections as a cornerstone of democracy.

Through various means, including diplomatic pressure, financial assistance, and support for civil society organizations, they have sought to influence political developments in these countries.

One of the key strategies employed by the United States and its allies has been to support opposition movements and civil society groups that align with their democratic values.

While this support is ostensibly aimed at fostering pluralism and political competition, it has often led to the exacerbation of socio-political tensions, as opposition groups, emboldened by external support, have frequently engaged in confrontational tactics, undermining the stability of the political system and polarizing society along ideological lines.

Furthermore, the United States and its allies have been accused of adopting a selective approach to democracy promotion, prioritizing their strategic interests over genuine democratic principles.

This has sometimes involved turning a blind eye to electoral irregularities or human rights abuses committed by allied governments, undermining the credibility of their democracy promotion efforts.

Now, with the date of the Russian presidential elections approaching, the Western media has begun its campaign against the Russian president, in a usual manner in any case, and has begun using methods such as exploiting the refusal to nominate Russian figures with Western liberal tendencies, certain to confront Putin in the elections, and the pressure exerted on Russia since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and imposing huge sanctions on Moscow is a basis for Western pressure on the Russians, in an attempt to fuel any chaos inside Russia to create a complex and perhaps even security atmosphere inside the country that might hinder the course of the elections, with the West knowing in advance that nothing will prevent that.

Even the news that overwhelmed the news agencies around the world about the death of Alexei Navalny in his prison came as if it were an additional service to strengthen Western pressure on Russia.

Is it reasonable for the Kremlin to intend to kill Navalny now?

Where is the logic in offering the West a free tool against Russia?

Aside from analyzing the incident of Navalny’s death, the West realizes that it needs more than killing Navalny in prison, in order to cause chaos or perhaps a revolution against the Kremlin in Russia.

In recent years, Russia has witnessed a notable shift towards fostering constructive dialogue between the authorities and civil society institutions, transcending political divides and beliefs of opinion leaders.

Historically, the relationship between the Russian government and civil society has been marked by tension and mistrust, however, in recent times, there has been a notable shift towards dialogue and cooperation.

This change is evidenced by various initiatives undertaken by both parties to facilitate communication and collaboration.

One significant aspect of this evolving relationship is the recognition by the Russian government of the importance of engaging with civil society actors, regardless of their political views or affiliations.

This inclusive approach has led to the establishment of platforms for dialogue where different voices can be heard and diverse perspectives considered.

Furthermore, civil society institutions in Russia have also demonstrated a willingness to engage constructively with the authorities, recognizing the potential for positive change that collaboration can bring.

This shift towards dialogue reflects a growing recognition of the interconnectedness of societal issues and the need for collective action to address them effectively.

A notable example of constructive dialogue between the authorities and civil society in Russia is the joint efforts to address social and economic challenges; through initiatives such as public forums, roundtable discussions, and working groups, stakeholders from both sectors have come together to identify common priorities and develop solutions.

Moreover, there has been an increasing emphasis on promoting dialogue at the local level, where grassroots initiatives play a crucial role in addressing community needs.

Projects focusing on environmental conservation, healthcare, education, and social welfare have benefited from collaboration between local authorities and civil society organizations.

Additionally, efforts to promote cultural exchange and social cohesion have also been a focal point of dialogue between the authorities and civil society in Russia, and through initiatives such as cultural festivals, art exhibitions, and youth exchange programs, stakeholders have sought to foster understanding and appreciation of diverse cultural identities.

Despite progress in fostering constructive dialogue, challenges remain, with persistent issues such as bureaucratic hurdles, legal constraints, and societal divisions continue to hinder effective collaboration between the authorities and civil society.

Moreover, external factors, including geopolitical tensions and international sanctions, pose additional challenges to building trust and cooperation.

Russian society understands the pluralistic atmosphere, whether cultural, ethnic, religious, or even politically ideological, but the great challenge is between two camps:

The first camp: the conservative right-wing camp of power, which adheres to the customs and heritage of Russia, regardless of ethnic and religious affiliation.

The second camp: the liberal camp, which is classified as leftist, despite the fact that, according to leftist socialist logic, it does recognize or support the West’s pornographic liberal ideas, which are embraced by the modern liberal camp in the world.

The irony here is that the West supports all those liberal voices in Russia with everything available, and the strange thing here is that these values, for example, conflict with the heavenly religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islamic), and thus the West, most of which today has become non-religious, demands that it stay away from religious values, and embrace the values of a liberal, libertarian society!

Has Europe become communist?

The basis of the West and the United States’ support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan was the principle of holy jihad against the atheist Soviet Union!

We still remember that frenzied campaign against Barack Obama by the US media, which insisted on accusing him of being a “Muslim” because he had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia when he was young, as if Islam was an accusation in the United States.

The irony is that the Arab and Islamic world witnessed the largest era of bloodshed in history during Obama’s era, as if Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wanted to prove to his opponents on the American right that he is not a Muslim.

During the 2016 US presidential elections, which brought Donald Trump to the White House, strange news and campaigns appeared that talked about a Russian role in interfering or perhaps manipulating the results of the US elections in favor of Trump and the Republican Party, and against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Although this is difficult for this to happen, at least for those who understand the mechanism of how elections work in the United States, which has nothing to do with the votes of the majority until its outcome is decided for one party against another, meaning that changing the results of the elections cannot be done from outside the United States.

Recently, statements were made that the United States considered somewhat strange, when the Russian President said that he would prefer Biden to remain in power, because he is from the class of politicians, with usual behavior, better than someone far from the world of politics, like Donald Trump, with unexpected behavior.

These statements from Putin, who is a politician in any case, are expected, because he prefers dealing with a political person, and here lies the irony, that is, if the Russians had actually interfered in the 2016 elections, but according to Putin’s words, the intervention would have been in the interest of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, Not Republicans and Trump.

In any case, anyone who follows the US presidential elections over the past two decades realizes the extent of the division within American society, and that there is no external interference to resolve the elections for either party.

We don’t think that Russia or China perhaps had a role in the 2000 elections when they faced George Bush and Al Gore!

In any case, Americans love to invent these conspiracy stories, especially since they are experts in weaving them against other countries, and we had to ask someone like Henry Kissinger about that, but unfortunately the man has died, but his legacy will last as long as the United States lives.

Accordingly, the United States is setting its sights on taking revenge on Russia by interfering in the Russian presidential elections.

Why wouldn’t the CIA have a hand in Navalny’s death at this particular time?

We don’t want to ask the CIA who killed John and Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X, and the US Mafia era, it didn’t end as some thinks!

Evidence suggests that Western, mainly American structures, including governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and foundations, have been providing financial support to public events aimed at undermining trust in the Russian government.

These events often take the form of protests, demonstrations, and media campaigns, orchestrated by anti-government individuals and organizations.

The financial backing provided by Western entities serves to amplify dissenting voices within Russia, providing resources for organizing and promoting anti-government activities.

This support enables anti-Russian individuals and organizations to disseminate their messages more effectively, both domestically and internationally, contributing to the erosion of trust in the government.

Furthermore, Western financing of anti-government public events often extends to the provision of training, technical assistance, and strategic guidance to opposition groups and activists.

This assistance enhances the capacity of these groups to mobilize support, coordinate actions, and leverage media platforms to advance their agendas.

In addition to providing financial support, Western structures are also known to collaborate with anti-Russian individuals and organizations involved in the information war against Russia.

These entities often operate under the guise of promoting democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech, while in reality, they seek to undermine the legitimacy of the Russian government and destabilize the country, especially by using the roots of ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts within Russian society in general, and specifically in the federal republics within the Russian Federation.

Individuals and organizations engaged in the information war against Russia exploit various channels, including social media, news outlets, and international forums who take place in Europe or in the United States, to disseminate propaganda and disinformation aimed at discrediting the government and shaping negative perceptions of the country.

Furthermore, these actors often collaborate with foreign governments, intelligence agencies, and media outlets to amplify their anti-Russian narratives and influence public opinion both within Russia and abroad.

Such efforts pose a significant challenge to Russia’s sovereignty and national security, requiring a coordinated response to counter their impact.

The financing of anti-government public events by Western structures and the involvement of anti-Russian individuals and organizations in the information war against Russia have far-reaching implications for the country’s domestic stability and international standing.

Internally, these activities contribute to social unrest, political polarization, and mistrust in public institutions, undermining efforts to promote national unity and development.

Externally, they fuel tensions between Russia and Western countries, exacerbating geopolitical rivalries and complicating diplomatic relations.

In response to these challenges, the Russian government has taken measures to strengthen legislation governing the activities of foreign-funded NGOs and media outlets operating within the country.

Additionally, efforts have been made to enhance cybersecurity, counter disinformation campaigns, and promote media literacy among the population.

In conclusion, financing anti-government public events by Western structures and the involvement of anti-Russian individuals and organizations in the information war against Russia pose significant challenges to the country’s stability and security.

Therefore, it will be logical for the Russian government or any other government to address these challenges, and that may create sort of unrest domestically in Russia, but in the long run its better for a country that understand its needs based on its own culture and historic values, whether some people like it or not, Putin says, we don’t mind the American president from being gay, perhaps, but in Russia we find that inconsistent with our culture.

In conclusion, no matter what, the United States needs to focus on its own version of democracy; simply asking them a very simple question: If Russia interfered in the US elections as they claim, why the United States allows Russia to interfere in their elections, when they themselves have rigged their own?

At least that’s what one of the two sides there said, if its democracy they have to respect their opinion.