Yeltsin did do a coup in 1993. But still, yeah.

That's not really an argument. All you've done is label the Yeltsin administration a democracy, and the Putin administration an autocracy, and then told me a democracy is more democratic than an autocracy.

What I specifically want to hear from you - presumably someone knowledgeable about the political history of the Russian Federation - is how the Yeltsin administration was more democratic. Because my understanding is that the Yeltsin administration was extremely unstable (ie Yeltsin shelling the Russian white house after trying to unconstitutionally dissolve the parliament).

”The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. ”

Yes, their attempt was a miserable failure in many ways, but it was a democracy, albeit a very shallow one.

And in what ways is the current administration not a very shallow democracy?

I feel like ever since the Ukraine invasion Russia has been down-graded from "flawed democracy' to 'autocratic dictatorship' - I mean it's not Switzerland but it's hardly North Korea..

Do you not keep up to date on current affairs? When criticizing the Russian war effort can land you in jail for 15 years, it's getting very close to NK - shortages and all included

Do you not keep up to date? I live in New Zealand, a western democratic country and if I possess or share "objectionable material" of a political nature, I could land in jail for up to 14 years.

And usually has a pretty light touch on this kind of stuff compared to Australia, Canada or the UK.

So no, that in itself is not enough to prove to me that Russia is an autocratic dictatorship, when parliamentary democracies all over the world have similar laws - they reserve the right to throw you in jail for content that expresses threats against the regime.

> Do you not keep up to date? I live in New Zealand, a western democratic country and if I possess or share "objectionable material" of a political nature, I could land in jail for up to 14 years.

What exactly? I could not find anything by Googling on material which would land you in jail for 14 years.

Ch*d p*n, at a guess?

The relevant legislation is on the surface about CP, but if you read the fine print it includes anything that:

d) Promotes criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or

e) Represents any particular class of the public as inherently inferior as a result of a characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Digital-Child-Exploitation-Objection...

So yes, non-CP content is punishable by 14 years in prison if it's against the "regime". What Russia is doing is hardly unprecedented.

---

The broader point I was trying to make here is that more democratic does not mean more pro-western.

Well that's a given - but I really hope this dude isn't advocating for looser CP laws..

No, AFAICT just pointing out that "You can be jailed for up to X years just for having stuff on your computer!" goes for Western[1] countries, too. Factually correct, of course (the best kind of correct), but employed here in the service of some pretty hefty whataboutism.

___

[1]: "Western"?!? NZ is about as far East as you can get, innit? Oh well, you know, "generally regarded as non-dictatorships".

> how the Yeltsin administration was more democratic. Because my understanding is that the Yeltsin administration was extremely unstable

You seem to have your categories mixed up: Democratic or not is orthogonal to stable or not.