Predictable elections

On March 1, 10 constituent entities of the Russian Federation - Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Tatarstan, Khakassia, Chuvashia, Arkhangelsk, Bryansk, Vladimir, Volgograd regions and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug - will hold elections to local parliaments. Despite the ongoing economic crisis, United Russia is expected to win everywhere.

And this is not surprising. The party space is practically “scorched”, and it is extremely difficult to create any serious electoral alternative to United Russia. The last time the “party in power” lost regional elections was two years ago, when part of the elite of the Stavropol Territory united within the framework of “A Just Russia”, led by the then mayor of the regional center Kuzmin. Then the Social Revolutionaries won a brilliant victory, which turned into a demonstrative flogging for them - criminal cases were opened against the leaders of the regional branch of the party, Mayor Kuzmin was forced to take refuge abroad, and soon officially lost his post. Several “Socialist Revolutionary” deputies moved to United Russia, which thus received a majority in the regional parliament. The electoral defeat of United Russia turned into their complete hardware victory. Already in December 2007, in the federal Duma elections, United Russia received an absolute majority of votes in the Stavropol region. Nobody was surprised by this.

The only significant victim of this story on the part of United Russia was the governor of Chernogorov, who was emotionally expelled from the party immediately after the elections. However, he ruled the region for another year, and was recently appointed to the not very visible post of Deputy Minister of Agriculture, which allowed him to remain in the nomenklatura. However, for the governors, such a turn in the career of their colleague became a kind of warning, encouraging them to more actively support United Russia. Such support is often associated with the own interests of regional heads who are interested in electing local parliaments that are completely loyal to them.

During the current election campaign, administrative resources have affected the interests of even the traditional ally of the authorities in the party space - the Liberal Democratic Party. Vladimir Zhirinovsky publicly stated that considerable problems were being created for his subordinates in various regions, and demanded an explanation from United Russia, claiming that he reserves the opportunity to appeal to the party chairman, who, as is known, is Vladimir Putin. The problems of the LDPR are not surprising - if at the federal level the party does not pose any difficulties for United Russia (and for the Kremlin its participation is beneficial, since the Zhirinovites attract to their side part of the protest electorate, which otherwise could come to the communists), Then in the regions, competitors of the local authorities are “embedded” in the remaining parties, counting on a couple of mandates.

Some questions regarding the United Russia results could only arise in two regions. In one of them, the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the governor had to be replaced before the elections. The security officer Potapenko, appointed to his post after the arrest of his predecessor Barinov, never became an authoritative figure either for the population or for the very ambitious district elite. In the 2007 Duma elections, United Russia, led by Putin, received 48.8% of the votes in the district, which by Russian standards was considered simply indecent. The project of uniting the district with the Arkhangelsk region did not receive any development. So Potapenko’s presence in the governor’s chair became counterproductive, including for United Russia. Now the new governor Fedorov, formerly the chief power engineer in Arkhangelsk, will be responsible for the elections.

In another region, the Vladimir region, Governor Vinogradov’s term of office was coming to an end, and the head of the region spoiled relations with the local branch of United Russia, criticizing it already during the campaign. Vinogradov has still not renounced his Communist Party membership card, although he announced the suspension of party membership. By the way, there is no such wording in the charter of the Communist Party, but the Zyuganovites decided to turn a blind eye to this discrepancy - especially since Vinogradov did not become their opponent, unlike some other “Red governors”. At first glance, it seems that Vinogradov became a candidate for resignation, but Dmitry Medvedev thought differently. The “pre-election” dismissal of the Vladimir governor could have provoked an increase in protest sentiments, which would have turned against United Russia. And so Vinogradov demonstratively met with the federal leaders of the party, after which he spoke positively about the activities of United Russia in the region. In turn, Boris Gryzlov announced United Russia's support for the candidacy of the current governor. So questions related to the party’s results in regional elections seem to have been resolved. The result of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in the Vladimir region will apparently be better than in other subjects of the Federation, but not so much as to really compete with the “party in power.” Let us recall that in the Duma elections in 2007, the communists received only 14% of the votes in this once “red” region - not bad against the general background, but nothing more.

But what about the crisis and the possible growth of protest sentiments? This factor has practically no effect in the current elections. Firstly, people do not blame the crisis on the authorities, who failed to diversify the economy during the years of oil prosperity - the United States is recognized as the main culprit, which is fully consistent with the official version. Secondly, the population does not see an alternative to power (where would there be one in the current party system?) and seeks to “lean” to it, counting on help from the authorities, including United Russia. The government, therefore, acts not as a culprit, but as a protector, which influences the electoral behavior of citizens. Whether this trend will continue depends on a number of factors – the duration and depth of the crisis, the effectiveness of the authorities’ actions to combat it. But this is another topic that has nothing to do with the first March elections.

The author is vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies

Drawing - Mikhail Zlatkovsky / www.zlatkovsky.ru