تأملات من القـُرب بلغة الإنجليز في مسألة حكومة ومعارضة: روسيا x بريطانيا (1)
مازن سخاروف
18 October, 2021
18 October, 2021
المقال لعناية قراء الإنجليزية بسودانايل: وهو نسخ لمداخلة قصيرة حتى الآن بين كاتب النص, مازن سخاروف ومتابع في خيط إبتدأه الأول قبل شهر تقريبا كتعليق على فيديو على موقع يوتيوب, وردّ عليه ذلك المتابع, قبل أن أعقب عليه:
عنوان الفيديو:
HARD TALK! Putin On Opposition MPs Driving BMWs: Do You Think That US Senators Ride A Goat To Work?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1PgbR2OEU
وهو جزء (أو كل) من لقاء صحافي مع الرئيس الروسي فلاديمِر بوتِن يتناول علاقة الحكومة الروسية بالمعارضة.
إفتتاح الخيط, مازن سخاروف:
There is definitely a 'dilemma' for Putin and his interviewer here: whether the state should alienate or sweeten the tooth of her domestic opposition in order to play a respectable political ball. Mind you, this may reduce the antagonism of political struggle (at least outwardly), but it may not necessarily address other thorny problems: such as transparency.
تعليق متابع (Igor Y) بتاريخ 17 أكتوبر 2021:
If all political parties equally receive by LAW necessary tools and benefits, this is exactly a transparency, in fact nobody can tell that the government is trying to please opposition as all the parties are in equal conditions. That, in turn, prevents opposition to be blamed as “bought” by the government and at the same time funnels political battles into more civilised and organised way.
تعقيب مازن سخاروف, ذات المساء:
Interesting. I might amend your characterisation slightly: it seems more an equality of political privilege, than equality of rights. Admittance, if you like to an elitist club. You get privileges to join, but in exchange for what? This is where it gets really interesting :)
In the UK, the relationship seems more concretely established than in Russia. Government and opposition are not 'that different' here. The government of Great Britain* is called His (or Her) Majesty's Government; while the rivals are called HM's Opposition. Both have a 'manual', an actual manual to carry themselves in their role, and in relation to the other party. They follow a script with a small margin of creative improvisation.
One way to assess what we are talking about is to look at the 'least common denominator of behaviour of the politicos in government in relation to those in opposition. A stable and set relation, to my mind reflects a blurring of the line: the historical and ideological antagonism, or separated tracks between government and opposition.
It does not matter if the Russian 'model' is a spin-off of the British model, or the Russians and the British do not care about a comparison. What IS important is the degree of harmonization of the behaviour track of government v opposition as they each engage their track dynamics. In the UK, the difference is practically (some people argue) reduced to a token and artificial distinction – petty quarrels, plus the continued cynicism of 'managing' society via unscrupulous politicking (playing politics).
To put it more succinctly, the British model of government-opposition resembles a CONVERGENT track of politics, where nothing really changes outside the superficial stipulations of 'respectability' in the House.
One excluded witness in this state of affairs, is very likely 'accountability' for this arrangement of convenience.
Mazin Sakharov
jsmtaz2014@gmail.com
//////////////////////
عنوان الفيديو:
HARD TALK! Putin On Opposition MPs Driving BMWs: Do You Think That US Senators Ride A Goat To Work?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1PgbR2OEU
وهو جزء (أو كل) من لقاء صحافي مع الرئيس الروسي فلاديمِر بوتِن يتناول علاقة الحكومة الروسية بالمعارضة.
إفتتاح الخيط, مازن سخاروف:
There is definitely a 'dilemma' for Putin and his interviewer here: whether the state should alienate or sweeten the tooth of her domestic opposition in order to play a respectable political ball. Mind you, this may reduce the antagonism of political struggle (at least outwardly), but it may not necessarily address other thorny problems: such as transparency.
تعليق متابع (Igor Y) بتاريخ 17 أكتوبر 2021:
If all political parties equally receive by LAW necessary tools and benefits, this is exactly a transparency, in fact nobody can tell that the government is trying to please opposition as all the parties are in equal conditions. That, in turn, prevents opposition to be blamed as “bought” by the government and at the same time funnels political battles into more civilised and organised way.
تعقيب مازن سخاروف, ذات المساء:
Interesting. I might amend your characterisation slightly: it seems more an equality of political privilege, than equality of rights. Admittance, if you like to an elitist club. You get privileges to join, but in exchange for what? This is where it gets really interesting :)
In the UK, the relationship seems more concretely established than in Russia. Government and opposition are not 'that different' here. The government of Great Britain* is called His (or Her) Majesty's Government; while the rivals are called HM's Opposition. Both have a 'manual', an actual manual to carry themselves in their role, and in relation to the other party. They follow a script with a small margin of creative improvisation.
One way to assess what we are talking about is to look at the 'least common denominator of behaviour of the politicos in government in relation to those in opposition. A stable and set relation, to my mind reflects a blurring of the line: the historical and ideological antagonism, or separated tracks between government and opposition.
It does not matter if the Russian 'model' is a spin-off of the British model, or the Russians and the British do not care about a comparison. What IS important is the degree of harmonization of the behaviour track of government v opposition as they each engage their track dynamics. In the UK, the difference is practically (some people argue) reduced to a token and artificial distinction – petty quarrels, plus the continued cynicism of 'managing' society via unscrupulous politicking (playing politics).
To put it more succinctly, the British model of government-opposition resembles a CONVERGENT track of politics, where nothing really changes outside the superficial stipulations of 'respectability' in the House.
One excluded witness in this state of affairs, is very likely 'accountability' for this arrangement of convenience.
Mazin Sakharov
jsmtaz2014@gmail.com
//////////////////////