basarabian news - english version

this topic is for basarabian news in english version

Romanian-Russian Religious War

“We are very concerned and, of course, the actions of the Romanian Patriarchy will have consequences”, Metropolitan Kiril of Smolensk and Kalingrad said when he referred to the decision of the Romanian Orthodox Church of reactivating three Metropolitan Churches in the Moldavian Republic. The situation makes us doubt the meeting between Patriarchs Daniel and Alexei II programmed on the 19th of November.

The Holly Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church decided the reactivation of the Metropolitan Church of Balti, of the Metropolitan Church of Southern Basarabia and of the Orthodox Metropolitan Church of Dubasari and Transnistria. The Chisinau Moldavian Metropolitan Church asked the Romanian Patriarchy to give up on this decision, but the answer that came from Bucharest said the problem of the three Metropolitan Churches would be discussed on the 19th of November in Moscow.

ADDICTEDNESS

In order to present the situation as it is we have to say that there are two ecclesiastic units in the Moldavian Republic: Moldova’s Metropolitan Church, who depends on the Patriarchy in Moscow and the Basarabia’s Metropolitan Church, which depends on the Romanian Patriarchy. The Moldavian Metropolitan Church has 5 bishoprics, and the Basrabian one has 4 bishoprics, including the three recently activated ones, which means as many as it had until 1944. However, the decision of the Romanian Patriarchy is seen as not canonic.

REACTIONS

“The things happening now represent a serious breaking of the canonic rules, and this step will destroy the unity of the Holly Orthodoxy”, the President of the Department for External Relations of Moscow’s Patriarchy, Metropolitan Kiril of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, said. In the same context, Bishop Egorievski Mark, the vice-president of the same department, said this “is a nationalist action and a direct act that targets the separation of the Orthodox world”.

In the same time, Bishop Iustinian of Tiraspol and Dubasari didn’t agree with the decision of the Romanian Church.

The Romanian answer is based on historical arguments: “This reactivation was the natural consequence of the 2004 final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Moldavian Republic that says this is the spiritual, canonic and historical successor of the Basarabian Metropolitan Church that existed until 1944. All its eparchies have been reactivated by the autonomous Metropolitan Church of Basarabia and officially registered by the Government of the Moldavian Republic”. The spokesperson of the Romanian Patriarchy, Father Costel Stoica said: “The Holly Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church didn’t do anything more than taking into account the juridical decision regarding the respective eparchies of the Basarabian Metropolitan Church. The decision of the Holly Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church regarding the new ecclesiastic configuration in the Moldavian Republic is not meant to create conflicts since it is only a consequence of a Court Order.”

The Basarabian Metropolitan Church

The Basarabian Metropolitan Church has been created after the Great Unification in 1918 by transforming the Archbishopric of Chisinau into Metropolitan Church. The actual organization was made with the help of the law for the organization of the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1925 and Gurie Grosu, followed by Efrem Enachescu, were the first metropolitans. The Metropolitan Church jurisdiction covered Chisinau and the other three dioceses that the Romanian church reactivated recently. It didn’t exist during the Soviet occupation in 1940-1941 or during the communist regime between 1944 and 1992. It has been replaced with the Chisinau Eparchy, which has been under the authority of the Patriarchy in Moscow. In 1992, the Romanian Synod decided in favor of the reactivation of the Basarabian Metropolitan Church. This reactivated the historical eparchies of the Metropolitan Church and the Moldavian authorities recognized them in 2004 and 2006.

The Romanian Patriarch’s visit in Moscow

The Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church is to make a visit to the Moscow Patriarchy on the 19th of November. The problem of the bishoprics in Basarabia is a problem on the agenda of the Patriarch. However, Moldavian Metropolitan Kiril said he couldn’t know for sure whether the meeting will take place or not. “We said this meeting couldn’t take place in Moscow because it wouldn’t be understood as it should in Moldova and could be misunderstood in Romania and here as well”, the external relations representative of the Russian Patriarchy said. The Romanian Patriarchy said it wouldn’t be right for the dialogue programmed in November to be postponed. However it would be an occasion to discuss the situation of the jurisdictions in the Moldavian Republic.

http://www.jurnalul.ro/

Russia's election
Putin's phoney election

Dec 1st 2007 | MOSCOW AND TVER
From The Economist print edition

Guess who is going to win




“MARIA”, a teacher in Tver, near Moscow, felt ashamed when she told her 15-year-old pupils to join a rally in support of President Vladimir Putin before the parliamentary election on Sunday December 2nd. The order came from the local administration, staffed by members of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. “I would not have lost my life or even my job if I had not followed the order. But I felt I could not refuse it, perhaps because I am not a free person. Ten years ago I would have told you my real name,” she sighs. Her pupils later learnt from television that they had joined in an “outburst of patriotic feeling”.

Similar “voluntary” demonstrations have been staged all over Russia. When the president decided to head United Russia's party list, its poll rating jumped from 50% to 63%. Yet Mr Putin is not even a member of United Russia. Most of the country will vote for their president, even though he is not up for election. Indeed, the exercise is not really an election at all. It is about confirming that power in Russia lies with Mr Putin, who has presided over an oil-driven bonanza for his country.

Only candidates approved by the Kremlin are allowed to take part. Besides United Russia, which could secure 70% of the vote, these include the toothless Communist Party (which may get 12%) and the Liberal Democratic Party, a clownish far-right party set up in the late 1980s with the help of the KGB.

The results were fixed months ago, when the Kremlin changed the rules. To keep the opposition out of parliament, the Kremlin raised the threshold for seats to 7%, and banned small parties from forming coalitions to meet this requirement. The minimum turnout rule was abolished, as was the option to vote against all candidates. Regional parties and single-mandate seats that let in independent deputies were scrapped. Opposition leaders have been harassed or arrested and their financing blocked. Television has given blanket coverage to United Russia and dished dirt on all opposition.

Why have a people used to Soviet elections, when they had only one candidate, found the Kremlin's machinations so palatable? One reason is that Russian economic growth, sparked by the privatisations of the 1990s and kept going by the oil-price boom, has brought rising living standards and a new sense of stability. This, as well as his control of television, has made Mr Putin genuinely popular.

Most voters say the results will be rigged anyway. Worse, some 35% of Russians prefer the Soviet political system. Two-thirds of Russians consider the concentration of power in Mr Putin's hands to be a good thing. Most would like him to stay for a third term. Indeed, the only danger for the Kremlin is the possibility of an embarrassingly low voter turnout.

To guard against that, Mr Putin recently gave a rousing speech at a stadium in Moscow, broadcast on every television channel. He said Russia was in danger from ill-wishing foreigners and thieving liberals. The message is clear. Russia's enemies are the liberals who in the 1990s squandered its wealth, cut defence spending and led people into poverty.

They are now the candidates and sponsors of the opposition. The security services and police took Mr Putin's words as an instruction. When the opposition gathered in Moscow and St Petersburg as part of the Other Russia movement, which has not been allowed to register for this election, many people, including journalists, were beaten up and arrested. These scenes, broadcast around the world, were not shown on Russian television. Russians did not hear opposition speeches; they were not told that the police had unlawfully detained candidates.

The paradox is that the Kremlin would surely have won even had the election been free and fair. Its heavy-handed tactics betray the nervousness linked to the transition of power in any authoritarian system. A power struggle is clearly taking place within the Kremlin, as shown by the arrests of senior officials in different camps. Mr Putin needs to retain power after his second term expires next March, but at the same time to preserve legitimacy. It is not an easy task.

This is why the parliamentary election has been turned into a ceremony of approval for him. If Mr Putin cannot stay as president because the constitution bars him from a third consecutive term, he should take power with him wherever he goes.

Some Kremlin insiders think Mr Putin could make himself head of the powerful Security Council, whose functions may then be pumped up. Others suggest he could become prime minister, with extra powers, before returning to the Kremlin to replace the president, who could conveniently fall ill. The only problem of Mr Putin's system is that stepping aside even for a short time could be lethal for him and his cronies. And that is why Russia, despite the predictability of this election, feels like a country heading towards crisis.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10235434&fsrc=RSS

President Vladimir Putin has accepted an offer to become chairman of the dominant United Russia party.



Mr Putin, who steps down as Kremlin leader next month, told nearly 600 party delegates on Tuesday "I accept the invitation of the party".

Mr Putin is due to hand over the presidency to his long-standing aide Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Putin confirmed that he would become prime minister.

Correspondents say the party job will give Mr Putin an additional power base.

United Russia controls two-thirds of the seats in parliament, and exerts great influence through its administrative and financial means. The party congress in Moscow was shown live on state-run television.

Mr Medvedev declined to join United Russia, saying such a move would be "premature". He is due to be sworn in as president on 7 May. He won the 2 March election by a landslide.

Referring to Mr Medvedev's decision, Mr Putin said "I do not believe it is sensible for a head of state, wherever his political affections are, to lead a party. Here I fully agree with Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev".

"As for the chairman of the government (prime minister), a situation in which the head of the executive branch leads a party is a civilised and natural practice that is traditional for democratic states," Mr Putin told the congress.

"Co-ordinated work between the government and the parliamentary majority allows us to successfully resolve the tasks of developing the economy, enhancing the quality of healthcare and education, raising the income of the population and strengthening the country's defence."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/