Russia’s 2016 Elections
The sphere of international relations is full of different affairs and events. One of them, the elections to the Russian Parliament called Duma, has become the hot topic of discussion during the previous week. With the purpose of the detailed investigation of this event, we reviewed two articles retrieved from two independent publications named the Russia Insider and the Moscow Times, which both originate from Russia. These articles propose the distinct perspectives of the elections in Russia; thus, despite the same topic, they count a plenty of differences. This paper takes a look at the differences postulated by these two sets of articles with keen intention of understanding their fundamental precepts. The difference between these two articles are deemed to be explained in the light of their purposes, the audiences and the messages,
First of all, it is important to review the contextual contrasts of both articles. The article titled the Elections 2016: An Overwhelming Victory for the Kremlin published in the Moscow Times reveals the election from the opposition viewpoint. The purpose of this article is to explicate the immense impact of the opposition parties to the general elections in Russia. The audience set forth for this article is for those who want change in the current regime. It should also be noted that these audience are keen to check on the current government moves in exercising a free and fair elections. This notion is strengthened by the fact that most of the inclusions of these article is based on the various viewpoints of the opposition. The main message of this article is to give an account of the way in which Kremlin won the elections by setting out the strategy he used and how he managed to convince such a huge number of Russians. It goes ahead to instinctively analyze the whole context of Kremlin’s strategy by reviewing his manifesto and policy projections as a candidate. The candidature of this party is keen to involve very prominent persons in the seat during elections. It names a set of Russian parties as the “systemic opposition”, and emphasizes that all they are the followers of the Kremlin. In order to strengthen the effect of this message, the authors of the article provide the statements that such “opposition” parties will take the 445 of the Duma’s 450 seats.
The article titled the 2016 Duma Elections: Relevant or a Waste of Time and Money published in the Russia Insider although claims that all parties in the Duma are initially under control of Putin and Kremlin, and there is no real opposition. However, it reviews this terrible truth from the distinctive perspective. The authors of this article stress that the Russian electorate is well acquainted with the fact that the elections actually do not influence the real power in Russia. Nevertheless, it does not make the elections irrelevant. As the result, the authors of the article pursue the idea that people in Russia are satisfied with such state of political affairs, and in the context of “people power” the elections allow gaining the fantastic results.
The other point of comparison is the way that both articles use to describe the election turnout. The Moscow Times’ Publication emphasizes that the 2016 Duma’s elections are significant by the lowest participation in the state’s post-Soviet history. The authors add that such turnout was the part of the Kremlin’s plan. Furthermore, the article provides the point of view of the real oppositionists, who claim that they were left without any possibilities to “get through this iron curtain to their voters” (2016 Duma Elections 2016). In terms of turnout, the Russia Insider’s publication claims that the low participation is caused by the electorate’s confidence about the victory of their party, thus, they “did not even bother to vote” (Bodner, & Fishman 2016). The authors write in a rough manner, that the Russian people are fully behind Putin and the Kremlin, and the western plan of destabilizing Putting had the opposite effect.
As the result, there is no doubt that these two articles are contextually different. In addition, they differ in its way of material representation. For example, the first material is designed to meet the mass majority of the country while the second article gives much attention to the notion of those in the government and the precepts of the two parties in addressing various issues of societal concerns. The Russia Insider uses more pathos and emotional set of words and intonations. For example, in the explaining on how the two parties have baseless agenda but to help waste money the Insider utilizes pathos when they emotionally attach the economic impact of their ideology on the Russia’s economy. It should also be noted that the whole context of ethos has been used in this article where the author tries to question the ethical sense of spending a lot of money on campaigns instead of development. The Moscow Times is more emotionally restrained and neutral. In terms of logos, the both articles, although demonstrate the different levels. The first article published by Moscow Times utilizes logos on when the reasonably argue that the one of the main reasons why Kremlin won based on the clear strategy and outlining of achievable goals to the citizens. The reasoning appeal also provided a situation whet the whole context of victory was argued on the basic fact that it revolved around pure selling of intellectual candidature who has what it takes to lead this region. The Moscow Times provides more historical and expert analysis of the situation, referring, for instance, to the 2011 elections. Simultaneously, the ethos appears more intensively in the Russia Insider (for instance, the comparison of the Russia and the Japan). The ethical appeal is drawn on that the comparison has the effect of setting a benchmark on the real connotations of moral standards of these two countries.
Thus, despite the similar topic, the Moscow Times’ and the Russia Insider’s articles are different by their content and context. Furthermore, the level subjectivity varies in both articles because of the overtly propagandistic tone of the Russia Insiders article. On the context of the organization of these articles, there is a difference in how they postulate the whole context of factual points and arguments. In Moscow Times article, the author was only keen to give facts about the parties’ victory during elections. It outlaid salient fact about the political atmosphere on the account of what has been happening in the current sphere of politics. Additionally, the article narrated the steps that led to the overwhelming victory by Kremlin team. On the account of Russian Insider article, it mostly leaned on the argument on the authenticity and the moral proposition of the whole context of politics and resource to politics. The title itself sets a substantial argument whether the heavy use of money in the election times ethically substantiated. The dilemma created here even before one read the whole article gives the appeal that indeed the Russian Insider article leans more of argument rather than facts.
“2016 Duma Elections: Relevant or a Waste of Time and Money?” The Russian Insider. 2016. Web. 2016. < http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/2016-duma-elections-relevant-or-waste-time-and-money/ri16543>.
Bodner, M., & Fishman, M. “Elections 2016: An Overwelming Victory for the Kremlin”. The Moscow Times. 2016. Web. 2016. < https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/duma-election-wrap-up-55383>.