But let’s allow credit where is credit due here, please. First off all taking into account the merits of the individual case; outrageous skirting of human rights aside.
For his work in the promotion of conflict resolution and the supported maintenance of peace and tranquillity, both at home and abroad; Putin receives nomination. For stopping bloodshed through political discussion; Putin receives nomination. For being a generally all-round nice guy who continuously advocates for a more resolved and peaceful planet; Putin receives nomination, and I think we would all agree that any such works from an individual are beyond acceptable cause to receive such a resounding applause.
However, the merit of any case has its failings and here, laden in controversy, one barely knows where to begin. Putin is currently serving a 6 year term as president of Russia following a change of law that increased presidential term-age (theoretical term, that one) from 4 years, in 2012, amidst claims of fraud and irregularity by, both, opposition activists and the wider political community.
In 2006 Putin received widespread condemnation for, what was considered as, a crackdown on Media Freedoms in Russia, following the shooting of an independent Russian Journalist who had exposed corruptions within the army and its conducts in Chechnya.
In 2012 Putin backed stricter legislations of the Russian LGBT community, with further laws on Homosexual propaganda coming into place in 2013 and all the generally ongoing palavers there with.
To name but a few.
Now one could argue, here, that the very “blood shed” by Russian individuals striving for the right to live; speak and love freely, is cause enough to deny a claim for such an honour. Furthermore, the application of this law to visiting ‘non Russians’, whose privilege to express and speak themselves with the same freedoms, perhaps, as they would enjoy at home, well…one could argue that that dissolves the claim for peace and tranquillity amongst all people on the “planet”. Not to mention the Russian role as the main supplier of arms to Basha al-Assad’s regime, in Syria.
So we have, here, a man who’s every claim to honour is subject to rebuttal of the highest order. For, there appears to be very few instances where the promotion of such peaceful and resolved conflict, have not been undermined or undone by the very actions of his own legislation within government which, at the most basic level, aim to dissolve the rights of Humans to enjoy the privilege of a free life.
To allow, to the point of promotion, such hatred and discrimination to exist; openly and in your name, opposes the very essence of peace and the very notion of prize. The ability to nominate an individual regardless, therefore, raises into question the very essence of what the Nobel Peace Prize is and, furthermore, taking into account not only recent but historical nuances in nomination, the validity of its award.
The current atrocities faced by individuals in Russia for the pure nature of their love seems cause enough that such a nomination could barely even be considered that, surely, would be the Nobel Peace Prize in action?