Russian elections: Putin in power.

It was the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said that the democratic uprisings of 2011 are the most defining international events of the twenty-first century. All across North Africa and the Middle East, citizens, who had been shackled for generations by authoritarian rulers, protested in the streets to win the right to be free participants in a democratic nation. Absolute rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown peacefully, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule ended ignominiously after 42 years, whilst in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has resorted to turning on his own people. The great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, once said of Russia that its people were deserving of a despot because they did not love liberty. Yet after dubious election results and a forthcoming Presidential campaign in 2012, the Russian people are looking to join a new struggle to prevent the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, taking Presidential power for a third time. Two decades after the breakup of the USSR and the difficult transition to democracy what lies ahead for the Great Bear?

The elections in the State Duma (the lower house) last week can only be declared as a farce. An institution re-established by Tsar Nicholas II as a way of appeasing revolutionaries back in 1906 saw Putin’s United Russia party re-elected with 49.5% of the vote, down from 64.3%. The Opposition say between 20-25% of the vote was faked and if counted accurately the United Russia party would have polled just under 30%, a claim denied vehemently by election officials. Reports claim wide instances of ballot rigging including officials filling out ballots and parents of schoolchildren forced to vote in fear of cuts to school funding. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called for the results to be annulled, whilst many angry voters have taken their displeasure to the streets. Last weekend saw anti-Putin demonstrations in over 80 cities across Russia; they believe if they cannot stop him now then he is sure to be elected for another two terms (12 years), a costly mistake for the country. There were pro-Putin rallies accompanying the counterparts; however reports suggest that many of the demonstrators had been bussed in from cities, unaware of what they had been sent to.

President Medvedev’s decision to stand down after one term did not surprise anyone but it did ask questions of where Russia wanted to go. Critics claim that Putin was the man making all the decisions, yet there seemed to be a greater avenue of reform, along with the usual skulduggery associated in Russian politics. Diplomatic relations with the US were famously reset when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, key reforms began in the military and new measures were put in place to attract international investors. On the contrary, we saw the 2008 conflict against Georgia, energy wars with Ukraine and diminishing press and social freedoms. The difficulty for Russia is that it has struggled to secure a place in the world after the Soviet Union broke up. Many former satellite states like Lithuania and Estonia have rushed to join the EU and others would prefer protection from NATO rather than the Kremlin. With a decreasing population and waning influence in the world, Putin’s perception is that Russia must be united under a strong leader. Officials and oligarchs are happy to accept this as long as they retain their share of the spoils. Even Nicholas II moved to restrict the powers of the Duma.

For ordinary Russians, none of these situations are conducive. Political stagnation, corruption and the high cost of living has seen a poll show that around 20% of Russians consider emigrating. Despite a growing economy, many of the most talented scientists and graduates are moving to the US, Canada and the EU, Russia is suffering a brain drain, the prospects of Putin only exacerbate this situation.

Putin claimed the US was behind the protests and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to organise the unrest. Yet, outside interference and suspicion does not work on a growing technological and mobilising middle class. They want reforms and they don’t want Vladimir Putin to take any part of it. The concerning aspect of it all as the former chess grandmaster and pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov says, if the peaceful protests fail then it may lead to bloodshed.

Riot prevention in Chicago

The 2011 summer riots in Britain that began in London and then proliferated to other parts of the UK, most notably Birmingham and Manchester, came as a great surprise to most of the general public. For days rolling news brought us pictures of the armies of youths looting shops, attacking the police and causing general panic and misery. Social networks and mobile messaging mobilised hordes of youngsters, who took advantage of an overstretched London Met and vulnerable shopkeepers. The Government was quick to crackdown on the criminals, keeping Magistrates’ Courts open throughout the night to deal with hundreds of cases. Those found with stolen merchandise or inducing violence were given tough penal sentences; all condoned by an unforgiving general public. It did not end there; politicians, commentators and victims debated and gave their thoughts on what was to blame. Most on the Left blamed Government cuts, the Right blamed the welfare state and the general public blamed the parents; whilst the outspoken historian David Starkey blamed it on the ‘blackification’ of white youths. It inevitably led to the resignation of senior police officers and a report to what happened. These riots were the first on this scale in Britain for around 25 years and have led to questions of what is happening in some of our communities and what preventative measures can be put in place. On BBC Four on Sunday was an excellent documentary called ‘The Interrupters – How to stop a riot’ highlighting the work of Cease-fire, a public health group that aims to prevent gun violence on the streets of Chicago.

The communities in South Chicago have had to deal with the day-to-day issues of gang and gun violence for decades. From the same streets where Barack Obama worked as a community campaigner, gun violence in 2008 claimed more lives in Chicago than US service personnel serving in Iraq (509 to 314). For generations, communities live in a poverty trap, the cycle of poor schooling and few job opportunities lead most youngsters to seek alternative sources of income i.e. drugs, that inevitably leads to violent crime. A local funeral leader said that 90% of the funerals he had overseen involved young victims. These murders are often trivial and not gang-related involved inter-personal spats or random attacks, teenagers murdered by other teenagers. There is a code of death over dishonour, which may seem odd to outsiders, but in a community where life is lived day-to-day, gun crime is the norm, hopelessness exists as reality. It is not unusual for people to have lost over twenty friends to death, drugs or prison.

The Cease-fire project is similar to schemes ran in Boston and Los Angeles; its aim is to reduce gun-violence in the neighbourhoods. Using data and statistical models to cite hotspots, their team roams the streets and interrupts potential scuffles. In a society, where violence is the release valve, people are often reprimanded with their lives. The interrupters have seen it all before, they too have been a part of gang culture and have seen their own lives affected by violence, prison or drugs. They speak aggressively to get the point across and to educate those on the street. It is clear that in the heat of the moment, no one thinks rationally. Their mediation is there to make people stop and reflect. They may not be able to stop gang beef but it allows them to coexist and who knows, possibly become a community. In targeted areas they have seen a drop in gun violence between 40-45%. What is most important is that Cease-fire is operating in schools, educating a generation to understand that by taking someone’s life will only cost you yours in prison, they speak of their own experience and the malaise of taking such decisions.

Community leaders recognise that ending the violence is the pathway for a better future. It will serve to create better schools and will attract businesses to the area, creating jobs. What many of these people want but have never seen are flourishing neighbourhoods and lasting peace. The interrupters help rehabilitate people, in one scene we saw a boy, who had served time for armed robbery, confront and apologise to his victims, he went on to find a regular job at a nursery, not on the street. The partnership in Chicago isn’t unique, similar successful schemes have been rolled out across other US cities. In the UK, Strathclyde Police introduced data-based policing and social measures to tackle gang violence in Glasgow. Like Chicago, generations had grown up in neighbourhoods where unemployment, dependency and substance abuse was the norm. The success is highlighted in the decline in the crime stats. This has now become a blueprint for police forces around the UK.

Much work is still required but perhaps what is most vivid in these neighbourhoods are the unofficial memorials dotted around the city. The victims, who died in undignified circumstances, leave a vestige of their passing on every street corner. One can only hope that these will serve as reminders of how far the communities have come.