Valery Fedorov, CEO of the Russian Public Opinion Research Center ( believed to have close ties to Kremlin ) in an extensive interview with correspondent Viktor Khamraev from Kommersant's weekly political supplement Vlast, provided a post mortem on last month's Russian Duma elections. Fedorov was asked to explain the basic anomaly of the results which gave the ruling United Russia party its greatest success despite Russia's economic crisis and hardships triggered by the plunge of oil prices and the imposition of Western sanctions following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the continued tension with Ukraine. Fedorov viewed the elections as validating the Russian preference for one boss over a Western style division of power. This one boss system is mitigated by unofficial competition and this state of affairs existed under the tsar, under Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev and continues under Putin.
Excerpts from the interview[1] follow below:
Viktor Fedorov
(Source: Kommersant.ru)
The Economic Crisis Actually Helped United Russia
"Since 2015, there has been growing social concern due to the price rises and other crisis-related problems judging by your social inquiries. Against this backdrop, the ruling party [United Russia] scored in the elections the best results in its history. "
A great deal depends on the design of the electoral system. Some systems artificially stimulate political mobility while others constrain it. A 'party list' system i.e. proportional [representation] splinters the political forces. But the majoritarian [system] with single seat districts enlarges them and so on. In other words the institutional design has significance.
"But with us for some reason only one political power grows immensely stronger".
"It all became clear already in 2012, when new election rules were legislated. Those who planned to participate in the 2016 elections should have then started their campaigns They had to look around them, find sponsors, establish relations with the authority, with the mass media, assemble friends. The ones who engaged in this turned out to be mainly United Russia candidates."
"They established relations with the authorities in a timely fashion?"
"Who is the single- seat nominee in an average region? He is an influential political player in a territory that has its own legitimacy, and autonomy both from the regional authority as well is from the party which put him forward. He is protected for five years, he has a Duma platform he has a support infrastructure in a defined domain (for example, in business), he can be regarded as a real candidate for the post of governor. and other positions."
"He becomes that way after victory. But victory smiles upon whoever has administrative resources, judging by the fact that opposition single-seat candidates won only in 'pre-agreed' districts, where the United Russia [party] did not put forth any candidate [of its own]..."
"If someone's victory was stolen, it is necessary [for the candidate] to assert it in court. Personally I tend to judge the honesty of elections by the speed in which the results are summarized..."
Chechnya, Dagestan and Kemerovo and some other regions [where United Russia racked up huge percentages] distinguished themselves by [such] speed. But these results always aroused doubt both amongst the opposition as well as amongst experts.
"Each region has its own level of political cultural developments It was all a matter of political cultural development..."
Putin Is The Source Of The Duma's Legitimacy
Is it possible to consider a Duma, for which less than half of the country's adult population voted, legitimate?
"The Duma's legitimacy does not depend on the parties or turnout of voters, but rather on the President. If Vladimir Putin has confidence in the Duma and supports it, while the population trusts and supports Putin - the Duma will do just fine".
"What then happens to the constitutional principle of a division of power?"
"We first began hearing about this principle in the late 1980s [towards the collapse of the Soviet Union] when massive propaganda in favor of Western models began. In 1993 [when armed clashes between Russia's President Boris Yeltsin and the opposition-controlled Duma erupted each claiming legitimacy] all understood, that division of power is a direct route to exchanges of fire in the center of Moscow. And we do not need this. So the ideal of a division of power never managed to crystallize. Now, no one is excited about the fairy tales depicting the segregation of powers, independent parliament and independent courts, which will come and save us. We are not against it, but we don't look forward to them and expect much of them."
Maybe then eliminate parties or leave only a single party?
"Well that is not the case. The overwhelming majority of people believe that we do not need a monopoly. We like one boss but we fear a monopoly and for that reason almost no one wants a one party sytem... People understand that there should be only one Tsar, but a monopoly of powers is very dangerous. But a monopoly amongst us does not exist at all...there is no division of power but there is competition..."
"By that logic, even the Soviet totalitarian system could be recognized as non-monopolistic meaning competitive."
The USSR Was A Competitive System
"Unconditionally so. Under Stalin, and under Brezhnev and under the Tsar there was competition and even fierce [competition].
"Behind the scenes?"
"Yes. Under the Western model it is more open, frequently party competition. The instruments guaranteeing that competition are an independent parliament, and an independent court. We have a different sort of competition, [political] clan, ministerial and personal [based competition]."
"Under such competition people would not go to the polls"
"Well according to the Central Electoral Commission statistics 48% still went and that is a lot. It is not certain that previously the [turnout] was much stronger, simply the tolerance by the CEC for violators was higher...The voting took place in mid-September, when people had not mentally exited the state of dachas and vacations and did not participate in the political agenda.
"Secondly the country is in that phase of the economic cycle such as stagnation and depression. And if we now had been in a boom phase the turnout would have been higher and United Russia's results would apparently have been poorer. Why so? Because in a boom people want everything and in a hurry. And they would have presented more demands to the parties of power! But now people are uneasy about the future and cling closely to what there is - stability. At the same time, to vote for the officials is undesirable and hence the low turnout."
The Opposition Had Nothing To Offer
"Why did the opposition fail to mobilize its voters, especially in the large cities where United Russia's positions were always less firmly entrenched?"
Evidently, a disparity existed between their political demands and political proposals. In the major cities many intellectuals, educated and self-sufficient people were prepared to go out and vote, if they were offered something worthwhile. It emerged that most parties had nothing to offer them."
"They did make suggestions. But it was impossible to understand them in the prime time debates that the television channels presented us with."
"We are in an economic crisis and there were major concerns that now the opposition would play full time upon this. Therefore they structured the debates in the format of monologues rather than 'dog-fights'. And this aroused great disappointment amongst all who awaited them, listened and then gave up. "
"And now how should United Russia with such dominance treat the numerically small opposition? "
And how can it treat parties that have lost everything? I repeat - we are in an economic crisis. But neither the Communist Party of the Russian Federation nor Just Russia brought up the 'social' hobby horse of the leftists even once during the campaign. In my opinion, on September 19 [the day after the election] Gennady Zuganov and Sergey Mironov [the Communist and Just Russia leaders] should have assembled their party's leadership in order to tell them a single phrase 'I am leaving' but no such speeches have been heard."
But it is thanks to them that the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia has almost become the second [largest] party
.... The main credit goes to the LDPR itself. It's traditional ultra-national rhetoric has now returned it to the mainstream from being a marginal topic. Thanks to this the LDPR has escaped its negative rating and obtained respectability. The highest negative rating goes to the [liberal] Yabloko party (due to its position on Crimea)... The LDPR's real achievement is in becoming the party of 'second choice' including for the elite."
This means that United Russia can now disregard everyone with the exception of the LDPR
Theoretically yes. Practically the tenor of relations with the opposition will be strongly dependent on who becomes speaker.
On what should United Russia now use its constitutional [super] majority [that allows it to pass constitutional amendments unilaterally]?"
The New Majority Will Tackle The Economic Crisis
"It is not for United Russia to decide on what to use its 344 mandates is obliged first of all to the president. He is the one to decide how that political resources to be used. And the president has already said clearly that the support of the electorate is a [political] advance that must be worked off and it is necessary to work it off on the social-economic front! To exit the crisis economic reforms are needed. When the country confronts the necessity of tough, burdensome and painful reforms, it was compulsory to move up the elections in order to receive a mandate from the people for these reforms. The mandate has been received. But on what will it be used the president will decide... we will know soon..."
Behind-the-scene competition?
"Even in the most democratic regimes most decisions are made unofficially...We are not an exception"
"What then was the necessity for [ the slogan] COL - 'competitiveness, openness and legitimacy' ?What sort of 'electoral competition' did the author [of the slogan, the new speaker] Vyacheslav Volodin have in mind -the native unofficial competition or Western model [based competition]?"
The previous 2011 elections results concluded [with the mass 60,000 strong demonstration]at Bolotnaya Square. [They] succeeded in pulling people into the streets charging the authorities with stealing from the people the right to vote by falsifying the electoral results. So, in order to avoid a repetition, a political reform was implemented. Intra-system competition increased and that is good. But there were much less political protests. And this in spite of the economic crisis!
"However, the main questions of the country's development as it's widely understood - are not being decided by the Duma elections. The president and his team will decide them. There as well competition definitely exists ...but it does not carry a party character and it is unlikely that during our lifetime it will bear such a [partisan] character"
Endnote:
[1] Kommersant.ru, September 28, 2016.
