The degree needs to be raised

It seems that one of the important results of the internal political life of Russia in 2006 is the slow but steady decrease in electoral support for the party in power - "United Russia" and the associated formation of the socially oriented center-left party "A Just Russia". A significant role in the decline in confidence in United Russia was played by the unpopular laws adopted in 2006 by the State Duma (in which United Russia holds a monopoly position), especially the new rules under which parliamentary elections will be held. According to these rules, the turnout threshold (the minimum number of voters required for the elections to be recognized as valid) is abolished altogether, and the fate of parliament can theoretically be decided by just a few people who come to the polls.

In addition, the “against all” column on the ballot papers was abolished, which allowed politically active Russian citizens who were dissatisfied with the government’s policies and did not want to support any of the parties allowed to participate in the elections, to express their protest by voting against all participants in the elections. In regional and national elections, the share of such citizens voting “against everyone” over the past fifteen years has ranged from 5 to 20 percent or more, so the new voting rules have caused discontent among a significant part of Russian voters, especially among the opposition-minded intelligentsia.

The formation of the A Just Russia party, headed by people close to the highest authorities and to President V. Putin (for example, Speaker of the Federation Council S. Mironov), indicates that the highest echelons of the Russian political elite feel the growing discontent of society and are striving to to direct it in a moderate and controlled direction. At the same time, despite the fact that “A Just Russia” is largely another project of political strategists from the presidential administration, its formation is a landmark event.

For the first time in post-Soviet Russia, two political parties may arise, competing with each other, relying on power structures and on the “administrative resource”, which traditionally plays a large role in Russia. In other words, the Russian ruling elite, under pressure from society, is forced to at least partially move away from the actual monopoly of one party on power (this monopoly occurs even in the conditions of a formally existing multi-party system) and allow some competition between different groups of the “political class”. Although the formation of the A Just Russia party has not yet been completed, this party has already become a factor in political life and after the elections in December 2007 it has every chance of entering the new State Duma along with United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party.

As for the prospects for the unification of liberal and democratic political parties in Russia - the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, the past year did little to contribute to this unification and strengthening of their positions. SPS and Yabloko cannot agree on the question of “who is more important” and whose economic strategy is better. In addition, SPS and Yabloko pay insufficient attention to the main problem of modern Russian society - the problem of reducing the huge gap between rich and poor, establishing social partnership between different groups of the population and social justice.

We should also not forget that these parties are really in an unequal position compared to the parties that are supported by the Russian authorities. This especially applies to the financial conditions for the functioning of different parties, as well as access to the media, especially television. The relative success of the Union of Right Forces in the regional elections in the Perm region in December 2006 (second place after United Russia) should not be overestimated, since the positions of the Union of Right Forces in this region are traditionally strong, and the leader of the Union of Right Forces, N. Belykh, is a native of the Perm region. In other regions (with the exception of Moscow), the positions of the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko are quite weak. Because of this, the chances of overcoming the 7% barrier and passing the SPS and Yabloko into the State Duma individually are small, and the likelihood of their unification, as negotiations between the two parties showed last year, remains insignificant.

Another important domestic political result of the past year was V. Putin’s final refusal to yield to the pressure of numerous regional elites and change the country’s Constitution in such a way as to run for the post of President of Russia for the third time in a row. The very pressure of local elites on the president is largely due to their reluctance to make any changes at the federal, regional and local levels. However, changes are inevitable, as is partial rotation at all levels of government, which will be a consequence of the election of a new president of Russia.

Most likely, Putin’s firmness is dictated not so much by loyalty to the Constitution and reluctance to change it “to suit himself,” but by a sober understanding that the resource of trust in him on the part of Russian citizens is by no means unlimited, especially in conditions when Russian society is tired of the omnipotence of officials, of corruption, from scandals shaking power structures, and from unpopular reforms carried out by the government. In addition, compliance with the Constitution and the coming of new people to power are important for improving relations with Western countries, or at least preventing their further deterioration. Putin, as he himself has stated more than once, expects to participate in the 2012 presidential elections again, since the Russian Constitution does not prohibit this, and until then, while holding one position or another, to continue to actively influence the policies of the Russian leadership.

The main event in international politics last year, of course, was the obvious failure of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq and the associated defeat of the Republican Party in the elections to the US Congress in November 2006. Although outwardly little has changed in Iraq over the year, it is obvious (including including the majority of American voters) that the United States has reached a dead end here. Just as the “quick victory” in Afghanistan ultimately turned into a heavy defeat for the USSR, so the “quick victory” of the United States in Iraq turned into a political defeat for George W. Bush and the radical conservatives. So far, defeat has not been recognized and lessons have not been learned from it, but this is only a matter of time.

The war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and the subsequent complication of the internal political situation in this country also did not bring much laurels to the American leadership - just like the inability to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is possible that the failures of US policy in the Middle East are not least connected with the successes of leftist forces in Latin America, since the failure of the right-wing conservative course of the US leadership in one region immediately caused the weakening of right-wing parties in other regions of the world, and before in just one of the “problem” regions - Latin America. In the era of globalization, such relationships do not seem at all surprising or unrealistic.

Another scandalous event that caused a resonance throughout the world was the murder of former Russian FSB officer A. Litvinenko, as well as the radioactive traces associated with this murder that spread throughout Europe. Since Scotland Yard's investigation into this case is in full swing and, apparently, will continue for a long time, there is no point in guessing who exactly committed the murder of Litvinenko and who benefited more from it - especially since there is a lot of speculation in the Western and Russian press on this matter. countless versions and guesses.

Another thing is surprising, namely that the mysterious events in London, which largely diverted the attention of the international community from the situation in Iraq, Lebanon, from the Iranian nuclear program and, finally, from the internal political struggle in the United States, followed almost immediately after the November elections to the US Congress and simultaneously with the actual recognition of the deadlock in Iraq, sounded in the report of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Perhaps this is just a simple coincidence, but it is possible that it was still very beneficial for someone to divert the attention of the international community to other topics.

Thus, the past year both for Russia and for the whole world was very turbulent, rich in political events. The consequences of these events and conflicts will be felt next year, which will be the year of parliamentary elections for Russia, which traditionally represent a kind of rehearsal and test of strength before the presidential elections. We can expect that as we get closer to these elections, the temperature of political life in Russia will increase, since there is a lot at stake for the Russian political elite.

In the United States, preparations for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections will also begin in 2007, and this year is unlikely to be calm both in the United States and abroad. The Middle East will almost certainly remain one of the most “problematic” and conflict-ridden regions in which many important events will take place, but the events that will take place there will most likely affect many countries in different regions of the world.