| Experts are alarmed by chaotic amendments to election legislation The political action club “November 4” discussed the rapidly changing electoral and party legislation at its regular meeting. Most experts agreed that the amendments adopted by the State Duma to abolish the “against all” column and return to early voting do not correspond to the entire previous logic of legislative development. Even the head of the Central Election Commission, Alexander Veshnyakov, and the speaker of the Federation Council, Sergei Mironov, actively oppose the initiatives of United Russia. But this does not bother United Russia.
On Wednesday, deputies in the second reading adopted an amendment that would exclude the “against all” column from ballot papers for elections at all levels. Also under consideration in the State Duma is a bill that would reintroduce the institution of early voting (about 2% of citizens used the right to vote using absentee ballots in recent campaigns). On the same day, the head of the upper house of parliament, Sergei Mironov, in comments to the media, said that the abolition of the column “against everyone” would not help anyone, but would become “a very big strategic and systemic mistake of United Russia.”
At the round table meeting, Alexander Veshnyakov suggested that the impetus for such activity by United Russia, which supported the amendment, was the recent decisions of the Constitutional Court. In November 2005, the Constitutional Court allowed citizens to campaign individually in elections against all candidates at their own expense. At the same time, in June of this year, the Constitutional Court recognized the provisions of the federal law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, which prohibit citizens and public associations from conducting election campaigning with their own money, as consistent with the Constitution. Now, apparently, in order to resolve the conflict that has arisen, the State Duma has decided to completely get rid of the “against all” column. “Until May 2006, only eight subjects took advantage of the right to cancel this column,” said the head of the Central Election Commission. “If we cancel the “against all” column, we need to reconsider the conditions for removing candidates from registration and soften the reasons for refusing it.”
Secretary of the Federal Political Council of the Union of Right Forces Boris Nadezhdin complained that during the last change in the electoral legislation six months ago, there was at least some discussion present: “Now, without the knowledge of the public, the rules of the game are changing, and on the fly, practically during regional election campaigns.” Moreover, earlier, before the latest changes, according to the politician, the concept was visible in the legislation. And to strengthen the party’s role, Mr. Nadezhdin suggested that United Russia should not randomly adopt amendments, but adopt a law obliging parties to nominate a presidential candidate and nominate their “successor.”
Approximately the same method of strengthening the role of a specific party was proposed by the head of VTsIOM Valery Fedorov. Since, according to VTsIOM polls, parties are infinitely behind the president in terms of trust, the head of state should become a party member. By the way, on the same day, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Vladislav Surkov “did not rule out the possibility of Vladimir Putin joining United Russia.”
Editor-in-chief of Expert magazine, member of the Public Chamber Valery Fadeev suggested that everything that is happening is not accidental: “Previously, there was an attempt by the Kremlin to rely on civil society, and a Civil Forum was assembled. But society turned out to be loose, and now the Kremlin, apparently, is going to rely on political parties.” The head of the Union of Right Forces, Nikita Belykh, warned that in this case, the authorities may soon decide that the political parties are “loose” and rely on the security forces.
United Russia members present at the event preferred to avoid commenting on the abolition of the “against all” column. The head of the State Duma Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, Vladimir Pligin, only said that “removing the column is justified,” and his colleague in the United Russia party, Alexey Tkachev, admitted that he personally doesn’t care whether the law is changed or not: “The main thing is that in the regions something has changed to make the laws work.”
Valery Fadeev clarified the idea: “The column “against everyone” is a political atavism plus the stimulation of nihilism and irresponsibility. This is not a manifestation of democracy." And member of the Public Chamber Andranik Migranyan explained that “democracy is a choice between two evils,” and advised his colleagues not to confuse morality with politics, but to educate citizens. “If people vote for those parties that obviously do not get into parliament, then their votes will be lost,” explained the political scientist. “And people need to be taught to value their voices.”
The head of the Zircon research group, Igor Zadorin, doubted that such lessons would benefit Russian society: “The opportunity to vote against all candidates served as a “red light” in the case of government bankruptcy. It also channeled protest sentiments, which now it is unknown what will result.” Daria GUSEVA |
|
