RSS

During her trip to Russia last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that the country would best fulfil its potential if it opened its political system and allowed a greater degree of dissent. Clearly the regional elections of October 11 as well as the ballot for the Moscow city council, both of which have been decried as "rigged" by members of the Russian parliament and international election monitors, do not represent an opening up of the political system. In an attempt not to irritate the Kremlin by criticizing Russian domestic policy, Secretary Clinton did not comment directly on the outcome of the elections. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev described the ballots as "well-organized" and "conducted in accordance with the law."

The regional elections went ahead in 75 of Russia's 83 regions resulting in United Russia, the country's ruling party that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin serves as chairman, gathering 80% of the vote. Independent election observers have issued charges of mass electoral fraud during the voting, including the unavailability of polling places that were scheduled to be open, while a representative of a Russian non-governmental organization remarked that the violations were worse than in previous years.

Following United Russia's sweeping victories in regional and local elections, members of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Just Russia walked out of parliament in protest. They demanded a re-count of the votes nationwide as well as a meeting with President Medvedev. Disappointment with his inability to deliver on previous promises to foster greater political diversity in Russia, most recently expressed in an October 7 speech to students at Moscow State University, likely fuelled the action as most of the parties involved have usually expressed dissatisfaction with Kremlin policies guardedly. The Kremlin has not confirmed whether Mr. Medvedev would participate in a meeting with the protesting parliamentarians, but such a move is unlikely as they have been berated on state television and their actions have been characterized as "moral terror" by Vladimir Churov, Chairman of the Central Election Commission.  

An even bleaker picture emerged from the monitors observing the concurrent election for the Moscow city council. There, United Russia won 32 of the 35 available seats; the remaining 3 seats taken by members of the Communist Party. Yabloko, the liberal party that poses the greatest political challenge to Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov failed to meet the 7% threshold of votes necessary to obtain a seat. Some of its members were therefore disqualified from standing in the election due to alleged "irregularities."

The cavalier response of Russian officials to allegations of fraud in both elections is deeply troubling. If Moscow is intent on joining rule-based international institutions such as the World Trade Organization, whilst being a respected member of the global community, the Kremlin would be well advised to do more than pay lip service to the universal democratic principles that are enshrined in its constitution.

Elizabeth Zolotukhina is Head Editor of the Case Studies Working Group. She is currently working on a National Security Reform project.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Jeffrey Mankoff: The Road to Tehran Does Not Run Through Moscow
• Hans Kundnani: Will Germany Remain Part of the West
• Claudine Lamond: Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Russian Foreign Policy
  

October 27, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party" There's a phrase you don't see too often! It shows that selling one's soul and joining the call for a new Russian Empire isn't enough, you have to be one of the Putin cronies, or you get nothing.

It is interesting to speculate, which elections were more corrupt: Russia's or her former client state, Afghanistan. Probably, Afghanistan's elections were a little worse; the fact that a comparison is even possible, should fill Russia with shame.

Tags: | Russian Elections | United Russia | Russia |

October 27, 2009

Alexey Krasnov, London School of Economics , Bronze Contributor (21)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Undoubtedly, all elections of past years in Russia should fill Russia with shame. What is even worse is that much of the electoral fraud is in fact unnecessary because genuine support of the Russian population for the United Russia, Putin and Medvedev is incredibly high. According to independent sources, when Medvedev became President in 2008 he could count upon 63% of the genuine votes, which was more than enough for the victory (official result was 70,3%). Figures are somewhat similar for the Duma elections of 2007 and recent local elections. Although the author is right that 32 out of the 35 seats were taken by United Russia in the Moscow City Council, in fact this means an increase of only 4 seats for the UnRu in comparison with the previous term. Why would one soil his hands for unnecessary votes is a puzzle for me. Perhaps, it simply became a habit and that's the worst part.

At the same time, on the positive side, it's good that the Parliament has not atrophied completely and some dissatisfaction with the regime and the ruling party became public. The amount of media coverage of the protest was also surprising with even the Kremlin-controlled channels reporting the protest. Finally, contrary to the concern of the author, the President has eventually met with the protesting Party leaders, admitting that 'some' irregularities might have arisen during the elections and suggesting that the best way to solve the problem is through the court hearing where these parliamentarians are now heading to. Thus, I believe, comparing to the Putin's presidency, something positive is nevertheless happening with democracy in Russia, something that is impossible to apprehend but one can feel. Not the best way to move forward, I admit, but the one that is better than nothing.

Tags: | Russia | elections | electoral fraud |

October 27, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Substantial change in Russia will not come until catastrophe strikes, this seems to be ingrained within Russia's rather tragic history.

Indeed, its history, including its Soviet era history, is a history of political centralization and external territorial aggrandizement in order to achieve security from perceived external threats. This is still true. The opportunity for something fundamentally different was lost probably for a generation during the failed experiment at "westernized liberalization" of the 1990s.

Despite the roller coaster costs of energy that alternately benefits and harms Russia's current hydrocarbon export economic model, it will remain relatively intact and unified even under a non-democratic regime for a long time. The West will need to accept this.

Cautious engagement while drawing some lines in the sand that are uncrossable is needed. This is why I adamantly opposed the Obama Administration's BMD decision. While I am less supportive of further NATO expansion, I felt the BMD was a political statement that represented where an uncrossable line was drawn. That this was erased strikes me not as "cautious engagement" but ill conceived diplomatic hubris, irrespective of whether there was an effort at a quid pro quo with Russia over Iran or if it was as the Administration asserted a technical decision.

That said, scolding Russia for choosing its different path will not help and will only further entrench what by its very nature is a tenuous and skeptical relationship with a nation that seems perpetually desirous for liberalism while ever mindful of past invasions from the Mongols to Napoleon to Hitler, which lead it to semi-authoritarianism.

Tags: | Russia |

November 2, 2009

Arthur Zielinski

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Whenever there is discussion of Russia by commentators from the West there always seems to be a conspiracy to ignore the elephant in the room, or worse, an inability to see it.
The elephant is Russian nationalism, which has to date been effectively controlled, and disarmed, by Vladimir Putin.

Of course Russian elections are rigged ; in some ways, the World can breathe a sigh of relief, as even an incomplete, or surface democracy at least habituates Russian society to the forms and processes of a democratic system. My proposition is that a fully free electoral system would plunge Russia into a series of crises, would imperil the the admittedly painfully slow adaptation of the Russian state capitalist system into a private one, would shatter whatever civil society exists, and would liberate chauvinism of the worst kind, leading to a populist and demagogic victory by a charismatic arriviste. In a small country this would be an international problem - in a large, and nuclear-armed polity like Russia this would be a disaster.

This may seem like a bleak picture, but is one which the current leadership of the Russian Federation is fully aware of. Russian society is not of the West, and has evolved in its own way, and many of the lessons of history which Western societies take for granted do not even register in Russian consciousness. This is NOT an attack on Russia - in many ways it is one of the great societies on this planet that have had a profound impact on world affairs.

I would compare Russia's problems with that of Algeria's. There is a Western-orientated governing elite which is aware of the possibilities of being "plugged in" into a global community, and of the benefits that are possible, paying more than lip-service to democratic values, and yet fearful of the results of the full democratisation of their society. No doubt there is self-interest as well, as vested interests are potentially threatened. Algerians are fully aware of their own history, and know that full democracy would inevitably lead to a truly fundamental Islamic Republic. Algerian fundamentalism has in previous ages electrified the Mediterranean world, and there is no reason to suppose that a modern version would be any less assertive or effective. Similarly, a Russian Napoleon in the Kremlin would be monster we would not want to have.

There are no quick fixes, but as is usual my favourite panacea is a continuation of the Federal Republic's Ostpolitik, which really has not changed from the days of Willy Brandt: mutually beneficial trade agreements, a genuine empathy for Russian concerns, and support wherever possible for any civil society initiatives within Russia.

Historically, Russia has been too big to be changed from without - it must be changed from within, and is quite capable of doing so, but the stimulus must be there, constant, effective and successful. Maybe Peter the Great's methods were suspect, but he did change a feudal, Euro-Asiatic society into a recognisably European one - hopefully this process can be continued...

November 5, 2009

Member deleted

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

First, I have to agree with Mr. Zielinski above in saying that, first and foremost, the World needs to be thankful that the cracks in Russia's incomplete democracy are, for now, not widening into gaping fissures that would stand to dissolve further the region’s tenuous stability.

However, I would have to disagree with the assessment that the only inroad, or even the greatest inroad, for Russia to a greater role in international politics is through domestic democratic reform. Instead, I would advocate for not only increased global trade, as again Mr. Zielinski mentions above, but a serious push for a more diverse economy.

Right now, Russia's terminal reliance on its energy exports makes it vulnerable not just in the future, but even now as we see fluctuations in the price of such commodities. That vulnerability, in turn, can only lead to a weakening, over time, of its relevance in international politics as other states begin to question whether, in 50 years, Russia will still have the economic capacity to insert its interests abroad. By beginning the long process of diversification now, Russia only stands to solidify its place among the other countries atop the international political order.

April 23, 2010

Victoria Naselskaya, Humboldt University of Berlin, Master in British Studies (Politics, Law, Economics), Silver Contributor (54)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The representation of “United Russia” and especially the president and the PM in Russian official (=pro-state) media has always been rather positive. Taking into the account the fact, that press is the informal political adviser of the ordinary public, the huge support for the United Russia becomes not so striking.
Another point is a well-known corruption of state-officials and some statesmen. But as pay-offs and bribes became a matter of fact and often a necessity, expected by the police or civil servant, from a citizen, the latter often treat corruption as a minor weak point.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org