Last week’s Russian regional and local electoral results simply are not credible. In all elections, what matters most is the manner by which votes are counted, not how they were cast. It is largely irrelevant whether the most widespread fraud occurred during the course of the former rather than the latter. No one in good faith can deny that significant fraud seems to have occurred. Yet I continue to be perplexed by why the country’s national and regional ruling elites must fix elections that they would most probably have won anyway (albeit by much smaller margins).
One clever individual once described electoral systems in most developing countries (which in many ways Russia, and perhaps all states, can be classified), as “one man, one vote, one party, and one election.” At present, the latter two characteristics do not describe Russia: there are multiple parties and there have been multiple elections. Yet, it would be foolish to say this is an indication that Russia is a democratic state (“managed” or otherwise). Furthermore, the government is in no way accountable to the people in any fashion.
Russia does not have a history of democracy. Perhaps the events in October 1993 in Moscow followed by the December 1993 referendum allegedly approving the country’s Constitution showed democracy would not come to Russia for the foreseeable future. Real hope to the contrary probably died when the late Boris Yeltsin was “re-elected” in a contest against the uninspiring Communist leader Gennady Zuganov. Mr. Yeltsin’s victory was made possible in part by blatant violations of the country’s campaign finance laws, the assistance of many Russian government officials, and favorable media coverage.
With the passage of time, the countries’ various parties have changed along with the percentage of the vote they receive in legislative and executive elections at all levels, but a real opposition is not allowed to emerge. In Russia, the “party (faction) of power” ends up with its candidates victorious. Only the naive doubted that United Russia (and its allies) would win.
Russia is a diverse country. 140+ million persons live in eight time zones with roughly 30 million individuals eligible to vote in the various contests. The population is highly stratified economically. It is not homogeneous — it can be subdivided in any of a myriad of ways: age, education level, ethnicity/nationality, income, profession, urban/rural, etc. How could its electorate speak in such a uniform manner?
Of course, the rules governing an election influence the result. Where electoral boundaries are drawn have real consequences. All democracies do not produce results that completely reflect the preferences of the voters, which change over time, do not necessary coincide with a particular candidate or party on all issues and all do not cast their votes.
Andrew Wilson’s Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World (2005) is the best book describing how elections fulfill a mock “legitimation” function in most (but today not all) of the Soviet Union’s successor states (i.e. the Baltic States and Ukraine).
Given the state of the Russian economy and level of governmental corruption, the absence of some degree of voter outrage is simply not credible. U.S. President (and now Nobel Prize Winner) Barak Obama’s Democratic Party is preparing to lose some seats in both chambers of Congress and possibly even the governorships in traditionally Democratic New Jersey and “swing state” Virginia due to a multitude of reasons, even though the opposition Republican Party (with the exception of Olympia Snowe of Maine) has done little to promote a meaningful alternative program other than saying “no” to anything Mr. Obama proposes (with the exception of sending additional forces to Afghanistan, which ironically has more support among Republicans than Democrats).
Elections cannot be fair and free where those exercising power largely control the media, prevent opposition demonstrations, and appoint those who hold positions in the various electoral commissions. The Russian leadership leaves nothing to chance. No “color” revolutions (even at the local level) will be permitted, even at the local level, as it may spread. Situations similar to that in Iran must not occur.
The U.S. is not perfect. In 1960, John F. Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon was probably due to the fraud carried out at the direction of then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In 2000, the conservative justices who dominate the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the election over all Gore — in what can only be described as a political as opposed to a legal decision. Former Justice Sandra O’Connor deeply regrets her actions.
In fair, competitive elections, most victories are relatively narrow. Germany and not Zimbabwe should be Russia’s future. Who would have thought that I might have a sense of nostalgia for former Russian Central Election Head Aleksandr Veshniakov who seemed to have a sense that some opposition might be good for the country?
The recent presidential election in Afghanistan provides an interesting contrast. Due to the neutral U.N. observers actions, it was determined there should be a run-off election. That rather than crossing the 50% threshhold, President Karzai probably received close to 47% of the vote. It is ironic that Afghanistan should offer Russia a model for fair elections.
Few observers of Russian politics are surprised that the Party of Power [United Russia] were victorious in the regional and local elections. As noted by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, it seems almost certain the the results are due to widespread fraud. It is a tragedy for the Russian people that the country’s political leadership is unwilling to trust the people and move the country in a new direction.
Belarus and Iran do not offer attractive models for holding “fair and free” elections. Belarusian President admitted to fixing the last presidential election, where he officially received 93% of the vote. Now he says half jokingly that he cannot recall if the actual percentage was 80% or 90% percent. A large share of the religious leaders in Iran are outraged that that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared to be the winner of the Iranian presidential election.
The Russian nomenklatura don’t need guidance about how to orchestrate the holding of elections and ensuring the pre-determined results. At this time, whether the walkout by Duma Deputies was “staged,” reflect anger over not getting their share of the pie, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, A Just Russia, and the Communist Party, or was motivated by a genuine anger over the fraudulent elections. One wonders if by pushing a “reset button,” Russian domestic politics could be moved back in time –what year should it be? The country lacks a historical period worthy of replication, but was and remains full of patriots with high moral convictions who deserve the world’s acknowledgment.
[A shorter version of this piece appeared as part of Russian Profile's Expert Panel, available at http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Experts%27+Panel&articleid=a1256314183#3].
