In the Kremlin

Pythagoras is resting

August 1, 2011 Alexander Podrabinek

Passion for numbers is a special property of human nature. Pythagoras and his students, trying to give a numerical expression on the human spirit and fate, nevertheless made a considerable contribution to science at least the famous Pythagoras theorem and research on the harmony of sound. The vulgar masters of numerology, miserable imitators of the Pythagoreans, are trying to explain the events of numbers that occur around us. And only Medvedev and Putin are juggled by numbers, not trying to accompany his manipulations with any decent explanations.

We are talking about the percentage of the passage of parties to the State Duma. From 1993 to 2002, political parties or electoral associations participating in the elections took place in the State Duma if everyone gained at least 5% of the vote. So it happened from the very first elections. Where did this figure come from, no one knows. In 2002, at the initiative of President Putin, a new version of the election law was adopted, which set the bar for passing parties in parliament at the level of 7%. Why exactly seven is also unknown. Now, on the initiative of President Medvedev, the threshold is reduced again to 5%. It seems that tandemers simply love odd numbers.

An increase in the threshold was explained by the need to cut off marginal parties from legislative activity and make the parliament more efficient. The decrease in the threshold is explained by the need to strengthen the national representation and make the parliament more efficient. Whatever they do, everything is done for the sake of the performance of the parliament. So they think, or at least try to convince us of this.

Honestly, the difference of two percent with the boorish performance, which is called the “elections”, does not have significant importance. What, tell me, the difference in Parnassus is seven percent or five? And to us, voters whose parties cannot take part in the elections - what's the difference?

But still I would like to know where these numbers come from? How are they justified? Are there any studies of sociologists, political scientists, historians, or, at worst, astrologers and charlatans? Who whispered to Putin the figure “seven”, and Medvedev - the figure “five”? On the basis of what do they decide to change the electoral legislation?

Although with specific numbers it is not clear, everything is clear with motives. It is difficult to deal with Putin, a serving person and an education not spoiled with a large number of parties. Everyone needs to be controlled, embedded in the vertical of power, remember the names of leaders, make many decisions. The fewer parties, the easier it is to control with them. This is natural. Understanding the difficulties of Vladimir Vladimirovich, I would like to advise him to raise the bar of the parties to the Duma to 51% - then only one party will fall into the parliament, and everyone knows which one.

Dmitry Anatolyevich, unlike Vladimir Vladimirovich, was born in a professor’s family, was decently raised and counted more than four, never was afraid. He is not afraid if in the parliament there are, in addition to the United States, fair Russians, Communists and liberal democrats, some other parties. In moderate quantities and reliable quality. Since this will still not affect the results of the Duma work, then why not support your reputation of the humanoid?

The move is very true. Other liberals who were quietly quietly, and who publicly, have already shed tears of tenderness and called to vote for Medvedev. True, as Alexander Osovtsov rightly noted , it is completely incomprehensible where and how. But these are details, the main thing is to find the difference! You know, there is such an interesting psychological game: you need to find ten differences in two almost identical pictures. Find what the difference between Medvedev and Putin is. The enthusiasm of those who found finally understands one difference: it was seven, but yesterday, but it became five, but today. Well, five for five - but today, and seven - but yesterday.

Do our strangled political class need a lot? To a little weakened a strangle. At least two percent. And there are no borders. The difference seemed so remarkable that, bursting with tears of gratitude and Tai, serious hopes, waving his arms and clapping their wings, clinical optimists began to persuade others:

- Look, Medvedev is moving in the right direction. He is our president. Let's support it. There is a choice!

- Why is he better than Putin? - object life skeptics.

- Well, how with what? - the optimists answer, annoyed from misunderstanding. - He is more liberal. Putin offers to beat us in physiognomy seven times a day, and Medvedev - only five. After all, five are better than seven? After all, freedom is better than not free? You just want everything at once, but you have to move to democracy gradually, step by step. In general, we are for the rotation of the authorities, so let Medvedev remain for a second term.

It is useless to argue with optimists. As, however, with skeptics. But instead of a dispute, you can take a closer look at the figures of statistics and the requirements of the Constitution.

What happened to the State Duma, starting from the first convocation? How did the threshold of passing parties into the parliament affect its composition?

Elections of 1993: Voter turnout 54.81%. 13 parties take part in the elections. 8.72% vote for five parties that have not passed the five percent barrier.

Elections of 1995: Voter turnout 64.76%. 43 parties take part in the elections. 44.82% vote for 39 parties that have not passed the five percent barrier.

Elections of 1999: Voter turnout 61.85%. 26 parties take part in the elections. 13.39% vote for 20 parties that have not passed the five percent barrier.

Elections of 2003: Voters turnout 55.75%. 23 parties take part in the elections. 23.07% vote for 19 parties that have not passed the five percent barrier.

Elections of 2007: Voters turnout 63.71%. 11 parties take part in the elections. 7.14% vote for 7 parties that have not passed the seven percent barrier.

Thus, for the five elections in the State Duma at the average turnout of 60%, an average of 20% of the voters who came to vote were deprived of the right to have their representatives in parliament. This is a fifth of the voters, and were not counted with their opinion. I draw the attention of the reader that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution of Russia, the only sources of power in the country are the people. And this people took the opportunity to be a source of power. To make it clearer: 20% of those who participated in the vote is about 15 million people. Secondary voters. 15 million “wrong” voters in every election. And this is according to official statistics, real numbers would be even more impressive.

Maybe their parties were scored in the election so few votes that their candidates could count on a maximum on the leg from one deputy chair? Count. According to the party lists in all elections, except for the latter, 225 deputy mandates were distributed in the State Duma (all 450 at the last). This means that for those who come to vote, about 110 million voters for one deputy place must be given 0.5 million votes. It turns out that 15 million of the thrown voters are lost each time in parliament in a total of 30 mandates. Most of the parties that did not go to the parliament gathered more than half a million voices and could have one or two places there. In the “yield” 1995, 45% of the voters who came to vote voted for 39 parties that did not overcome the percentage barrier specifically in a specially invented for them. Almost half of the voters came to polling stations. Is it surprising that these voters will come to the next elections with less hunting or will not go at all?

Maybe all these “non -) parties are really terribly radical? By no means. Nothing extremist, no prohibitive extremes. If they were really extremist, they could not exist in a legal political space and take part in the elections. So why were they too radical to sit in parliament and adopt laws in the interests of their voters? Something poorly works an argument about radical political elements, which, supposedly, must be closed to parliament.

I must say that the percentage threshold for passing parties to parliament also exists in other countries, it would seem quite democratic: in Italy and Sweden - 4%, in Germany and New Zealand - 5%, in Denmark - 2%, in Israel - 1%, in the Netherlands - 0.67%. The motives for punishing small parties are called different. Here is the undesirable fragmentation of the parliament, and difficulties in the formation of the coalition government, and the obstruction of the passage of extremists into the parliament. This does not apply to democracy. This system is frankly anti -democratic and it is not built on the right, but on considerations of political expediency.

Most problems with the representative office in the parliament of a large number of parties can be solved in other ways that do not infringe on the rights of voters. Fragmentation of the parliament really creates procedural difficulties and requires the painstaking and patience of the deputy corps. However, this is better than the monolithic of the parliament, which provides lightness when making any decision. Who said that the work of the deputy should not be difficult?

The coalition government, with the abundance of parties in parliament, is really difficult to form. However, it would be more logical to change the rule of government, than under this pretext to deprive citizens of their electoral rights. In the end, the formation of the government is far from the only thing the parliament does.

And finally, a terrible danger is extremists. I once asked one acquaintance of a German diplomat to explain how such an anti-democratic system exists in a democratic Germany.

“You see,” my friend answered me, “this system protects the parliament from various marginals, in particular the ultra -right and neo -Nazis, which are not so few.

“But if these ideas are so popular in society,” I objected to him, “then shouldn't they be represented in parliament?”

- They should rightfully, but it is dangerous for society.

“But this is completely anti -democratic!” In addition, you mask the problem, and do not solve it.

“Therefore, I work in the Foreign Ministry, and not in the Bundestag,” the German diplomat joked.

Democracy is not perfect anywhere. However, in the same Germany there are many ways to compensate for its individual drawbacks. Another thing is with us. We carefully imported all restrictive norms from the electoral laws of democratic countries and did not contrast them with anything. Therefore, today in the State Duma there are four parties, similar to four factions of the CPSU.

The situation is seen so indecent that Medvedev, in addition to reducing a 7-percent barrier from 2016 to a 5 percent, already in the next election, proposed to give one deputy mandate of the party, which scored from 5 to 6 percent of the vote, and two-scored from 6 to 7 percent as a comforting prize. Thimblerigger! The party, which scored 7% of the vote, should get 7% of the places in parliament, that is, 31 deputy mandate (out of 450). 6% - 27 deputy mandates. The system is called proportional that places in parliament are distributed between parties in proportion to the voices for it.

The fears of the tandem are clear. A democratically elected parliament can take power from them. Then it will be difficult to count on a lot to be responsible for pardon or a conditional term. Therefore, to maintain power, they will do everything that they have enough for them - from political repressions to liberal reforms. For this, the whip and gingerbread drew in the ruling tandem. Each huddles their electoral area. In the interests of the general corporation.

After the death of Pythagoras, his students were greatly persecuted. In the middle of the 5th century BC, many of them were killed and burned in the houses where they gathered. The survivors fled. For which they were so pursued, it is not known for reliably. But if Medvedev and Putin befall the sad fate of the Pythagoreans, we will know what - for inaccurate handling of numbers.

Photo by RIA Novosti