Elections—2000

Elections in St. Petersburg

Mikhail Sokolov:

The election field for the victory of Governor Vladimir Yakovlev in the elections in St. Petersburg on May 14 seems to many to be cleared. At the behest of the Kremlin, Sergei Stepashin did not enter the fight, and Valentina Matvienko, whose rating began to rise, also left the campaign.

Having recalled the Deputy Prime Minister from vacation, Vladimir Putin noted, not without mockery, that Matvienko could run for office without interrupting her work in the government, like himself, for example.

But the lady, about whom Putin himself said that she would “stop a galloping horse,” did not risk breaking the rules of the game. He took away her administrative resource, namely, the strength of Governor Yakovlev.

Why didn’t Vladimir Putin dare to support Vladimir Yakovlev’s opponents? The explanation is given by political strategist Gleb Pavlovsky, who serves the government.

Gleb Pavlovsky:

The general decline of the opposition, which manifested itself in our presidential elections, unfortunately, apparently does not have regional exceptions. St. Petersburg enters the elections in the same way as the whole country - without seeing an alternative. And the local urban society is not yet able to form it.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Yakovlev swore allegiance to the head of the Kremlin administration, Alexander Voloshin, on time. The St. Petersburg governor agrees to introduce the post of prime minister in the city and share power with Putin’s creature. And as insurance, arrests of politicians and businessmen close to Smolny continue.

Let's start with Viktor Rezunkov's report from St. Petersburg about the situation before the city governor elections scheduled for May 14.

Victor Rezunkov:

Our city is tired. Tired of contract killings, of the Kremlin’s political ambitions, of the governor’s self-confidence, of broken roads, of an endless series of elections. The blatant logo on numerous posters of Valentina Matvienko’s image-maker Marat Gelman, distributed throughout St. Petersburg, hit the sweet spot: our city is tired.

Fatigue is the motto of the current election campaign in our tired city. By April 12, of the twenty-seven citizens who expressed a desire to participate in the gubernatorial elections, only four submitted signatures to the city election commission: governor Vladimir Yakovlev, famous businessman Artem Tarasov, deputy of the Legislative Assembly Alexander Korchagin and teacher Sergei Klykov.

On April 5, unexpectedly for many, Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matvienko refused to participate in the elections. She made this decision after an emergency meeting with newly elected President Vladimir Putin. Arriving from Moscow, Valentina Matvienko said...

Valentina Matvienko:

I had a meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, and he considered it necessary for me to return to work in the cabinet of ministers and continue my activities. You understand that I am not a free artist, I am an active member of the government, I am a member of the team. And the head of state has the right to decide which of the civil servants needs to work in which position.

You understand that, working in the government, I could not naturally combine work in the government with running an election campaign. Therefore, I must leave the election campaign and withdraw my candidacy.

Victor Rezunkov:

By this moment, according to sociologists, about fifteen percent of St. Petersburg residents were ready to vote for Valentina Matvienko. The Deputy Prime Minister appealed to the townspeople to support the candidacy of Igor Artemyev, a member of the political council of the St. Petersburg branch of Yabloko.

Valentina Matvienko:

We practically reached an agreement with Yabloko and Artemyev. I believe that this is a very worthy candidate, since I am not saying this unfoundedly. We met with him a lot, we discussed my program and Igor Yuryevich’s program. It coincides with us in many ways. And speaking about Igor Yuryevich, I know that he is a fairly serious person, in my opinion, with a very promising, correct vision for the development and management of the city.

Victor Rezunkov:

During her election campaign in St. Petersburg, Valentina Matvienko encountered first-hand the realities of the criminal capital of Russia.

Valentina Matvienko:

Even my short participation in the election campaign also convinced me that, unfortunately, there is no need to talk about democratic, civilized elections in our city. There were attempts to disrupt my meetings and put pressure on managers. All administrative resources were used to put pressure on opponents and possible candidates.

Victor Rezunkov:

Valentina Matvienko's decision to leave the race, as well as negotiations in St. Petersburg between Vladimir Putin and Governor Vladimir Yakovlev on the same day, April 5, brought confusion and chaos to the election situation in this city.

The Union of Right Forces, after vigorous consultations, nominated its candidate. This was the famous human rights activist, State Duma deputy Yuliy Rybakov, who, however, did not immediately rule out that he might withdraw his candidacy in favor of a single candidate from the right forces.

Yuliy Rybakov:

The meeting of the Union of Right Forces faction in the State Duma has ended, which decided to support the initiative of the St. Petersburg branch to nominate me. And it was also decided that it was necessary subsequently, after registering our candidate and conducting the necessary sociological research, to continue negotiations with the Yabloko faction to find a single candidate who should meet the interests of the democratic camp of our city.

I am convinced that we have no other choice. We are obliged, it is simply a duty to the residents of our city. I think that, first of all, we should think about the fact that the Union of Right Forces in St. Petersburg received twenty-one percent in the last Duma elections. By the way, I personally, being elected individually in our city for the fourth time, received from twenty-one to twenty-seven percent. "Apple", if I'm not mistaken, got about fifteen percent in our city.

Therefore, finding a single candidate and, so to speak, deciding that this is exactly a single candidate from both forces gives us at least thirty, as already said, percent, but I think that we have the opportunity to increase this result and firmly reach the second round.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Yuliy Andreevich, are you going to hold a consultation with Boldyrev?

Yuliy Rybakov:

I think that we should not rule out any options in these negotiations.

Mikhail Sokolov:

How much time do you allocate for negotiations? Actually, the sooner a single candidate appears, the better.

Yuliy Rybakov:

I think that several days are needed here after all candidates have registered. After registration, during the time that we will spend obtaining these signatures (and this is a certain form of acquaintance of citizens with candidates), we have the opportunity to fairly accurately determine their sympathies.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Are you not afraid that you will go, in some sense, against the will of the newly elected President Vladimir Putin, who was supported by more than sixty percent of the residents of St. Petersburg?

Yuliy Rybakov:

I don’t know exactly how many residents of our city supported Mr. Putin; I have a number of questions about the results - both in our city and throughout the country. But I also cannot claim that I know the point of view of the respected president today, because he changed it several times - and he did this without bothering himself with motivation. It’s difficult to say what he really thinks.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But, nevertheless, there are his actions. There is influence on Sergei Stepashin, who is not participating in the elections now. There is influence on Valentina Matvienko, that is, there is a fact: the field has been cleared for Vladimir Yakovlev.

Yuliy Rybakov:

Of course, this is so, and he must understand this. Well, that's his position. Our position is to fight to the end, defend our point of view and save our city.

Victor Rezunkov:

The nomination of Yuli Rybakov by the Union of Right Forces in the St. Petersburg organization of Yabloko was met, to put it mildly, with skepticism. Igor Artemyev suggested that Yuliy Rybakov would not be able to collect signatures in the time remaining until April 14, and this could negatively affect the future prospects of creating a unified anti-Yakovlev coalition.

State Duma deputy from the Yabloko faction Anatoly Golov doesn’t like this whole situation either.

Anatoly Golov:

The personal ambitions of individual politicians in the Union of Right Forces overshadow everything and everyone for them. And, instead of a serious conversation about the future, there is petty bargaining. By working together, we can achieve much more. But for this you need to work for the future and see the goal, and not proceed from simply personal desires.

I have a good attitude towards Yuliy Rybakov, but as a candidate for gubernatorial elections... this is simply not serious.

Victor Rezunkov:

Despite numerous consultations between the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, despite repeated statements by the Moscow leaders of these two movements about possible consolidation, it seems that the right will not be able to reach an agreement in the situation with the election of the governor of St. Petersburg. So, at least, State Duma deputy Anatoly Golov thinks.

Anatoly Golov:

Yakovlev's rating is very high, and in order to defeat him, either a lot of money or very powerful administrative resources are needed. Administrative resources belong to Yakovlev; the Democrats do not have much money, and it is unlikely that they will have any. Therefore, I don’t see any possibility of changing the situation within a month.

But if in the future we really join forces in solving substantive problems, then, of course, there is an opportunity to win the gubernatorial elections. But this needs to be seriously prepared.

Victor Rezunkov:

The famous Moscow image maker, author of the “Our City is Tired” logo, Marat Gelman, shares the same opinion (and without losing hope).

Marat Gelman:

In the St. Petersburg elections, the right lost everything that could be lost. That is, everything that was, as it were, captured and conquered in December. The younger generation, for example, who voted for Sergei Kiriyenko. Still, some of the first, and very serious, it seems to me, sprouts of this unification of democrats, which inspired some people - all this was lost. That is, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is - the Union of Right Forces itself, the Saint Petersburg Union of Right Forces, the Moscow Union of Right Forces, Putin...

And therefore, we had a feeling with Kiriyenko that the extreme nature of this situation might actually become an impetus for the democratic forces to begin to unite.

Accordingly, now we are creating several common platforms here, specifically for both Artemyev and Rybakov, in order to bring them to some joint work, to bring them to the point that they actually united, and one still, in the end, withdrew in favor of the other. This process can begin from St. Petersburg - to forcefully push the process of unification of the right.

A youth organization has been created that supports both at the same time, and which will support the joint candidate, and not someone separately. Some structures are also being created, so-called shuttle negotiations are being conducted.

The situation is very difficult. It seems to me that St. Petersburg... well, this is not only a problem for the right, but also a problem for the city. The city either didn’t produce any really interesting, promising leaders, or they... I don’t know... they all left for Moscow.

In contrast to the artistic situation, which seems to me very interesting, very promising, political.... Well, I would say that the political space is simply a field comparable... well, I don’t know.... That is, no stone has been left unturned.

Victor Rezunkov:

Marat Gelman does not like the stagnant climate of St. Petersburg.

Marat Gelman:

The point is that it is a mistake to think that politics ends with choice. After all, look. Valentina Ivanovna withdrew not as a result of the election process, but as a result of a behind-the-scenes game. Everyone knows that the undercover game never ends. That is, if in elections it is possible to count: this winner, this loser, then in behind-the-scenes politics there is a constant, continuous struggle. Today some won, tomorrow, that means others will win.

And in this sense, strictly speaking, my complaint against St. Petersburg politicians is that they are relaxing. “Well,” it’s like, “nothing can be done.” The first thing to do is to look for and promote, introduce a new person to Putin. All political elites of the city need to look for this person “among themselves.” And if there is no such person among politicians (and I understand that there is none), then we must look not among politicians. We need to look among big managers, among the directors of some large museums... We need to invite someone back from Moscow.

But - right away. Not three weeks before the election, but four years. That is, this process must go on.

The second is, of course, government reform. Apparently, there will be a prime minister of the government here, that is, in this sense, so I understood that there is a consensus, which means, accordingly, the prime minister of the government appears, and somewhere else the figure of the chairman of the Legislative Assembly appears. This means, again, these two figures, their purpose, the influence on their purpose does not come down to elections and does not end with elections. This is also a kind of political process. These are the figures who can prepare the situation. The governor is not a king. That is, power is distributed. Maybe not very proportionally, but it is still distributed. This means that the fight must be waged for this. Wait for someone to nominate....

And, in fact, that’s why I think that in general Artemyev’s game, in principle, makes sense precisely because if he manages to reach the second round... yes, this is unlikely. If he does not have large financial resources to carry out this full-fledged campaign, then this is unlikely. But if he manages to enter the second round, he will take a serious position and may become prime minister of the government.

Victor Rezunkov:

Recently, the idea of ​​amending the charter of St. Petersburg and creating the position of prime minister of the city government was revived by deputy of the Legislative Assembly Sergei Mironov. But, according to him, it was not at all with the goal of turning Governor Vladimir Yakovlev into a kind of wedding general.

Sergei Mironov:

According to our bill, the chairman of the government is elected from members of the government who are appointed by the governor. That is, it is obvious that this will simply be his right hand, this will be his like-minded person, who will help the governor work more actively in the Federation Council, engage in big politics, which is a priori completely natural for the governor of such a large city as St. Petersburg.

And the chairman of the government will take care of the city's economy, that's all.

Victor Rezunkov:

Meanwhile, the pre-election situation in St. Petersburg continued to change. Governor Vladimir Yakovlev was supported by the local branch of the Unity movement. The famous polar explorer Hero of the Soviet Union, State Duma deputy Artur Chilingarov, at the reporting and election conference of the northwestern branch of Fatherland, refused to participate in the elections. The St. Petersburg "Fatherland" also unanimously supported Vladimir Yakovlev.

However, the Moscow Fatherland reacted coolly to this decision. Deputy head of the Fatherland parliamentary faction, Vyacheslav Volodin, practically ruled out the possibility that Fatherland would support Vladimir Yakovlev, and at the same time gave a very vague explanation of the relationship between the St. Petersburg and Moscow branches on the issue of elections.

Vyacheslav Volodin:

We have not decided to support, as of today, any other candidate other than Valentina Ivanovna Matvienko. But in general, in our country, the initiative comes from regional organizations in terms of supporting this or that candidate. Given that the regional organization knows the situation on the ground better, it should set the tone here.

Therefore, until today, such an initiative of the regional organization, which we knew about, that the regional organization proposes to look at another candidacy, different from Matvienko’s candidacy, and to support her with all the capabilities of both the faction and “Fatherland” - this initiative has not yet been expressed.

Victor Rezunkov:

Meanwhile, St. Petersburg continues to live a busy life. Over the past three months, twelve high-profile contract killings have been committed in the city. On April 6, another deputy of the Legislative Assembly, Sergei Shevchenko, owner of the financial and industrial group Nord, was arrested. His brother, former State Duma deputy Vyacheslav Shevchenko, is wanted. They have been charged with extortion.

Assistant to deputy Sergei Shevchenko Andrei Krapivko is convinced that this arrest is a consequence of the anti-Yakovlev campaign carried out from Moscow.

Andrey Krapivko:

What else could this be connected with? According to the information I have, the extortion was allegedly committed in September 1998. The statement was allegedly written in 1999. And so, this statement was implemented just before the gubernatorial elections.

But the fact is that there are not only gubernatorial elections, but by-elections to the Legislative Assembly, and Vyacheslav Alekseevich Shevchenko, Sergei Alekseevich’s brother, is the only real candidate for re-election in the thirty-first electoral district instead of Novoselov.

Victor Rezunkov:

According to Andrei Krapivko, Governor Vladimir Yakovlev does not react in any way to the arrest of deputy Sergei Shevchenko. And this is strange - after all, Sergei Shevchenko was not only on the gubernatorial list for the elections to the Legislative Assembly in December 1998, but also took a clear pro-Yakovlev position in the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg.

Andrey Krapivko:

There were no official or unofficial statements or comments from Vladimir Anatolyevich. But this is probably a question of human decency. If the person is decent - which I have hope for - then, undoubtedly, he will comment in the near future.

If a person is not decent - well, that will simply be a vivid illustration for the city of St. Petersburg of who they elect.

Now, oddly enough, it may be safer to be in the camp of Governor Yakovlev’s opponents than in the camp of his supporters. But I think that Vladimir Anatolyevich, as an intelligent person, will draw conclusions.

Victor Rezunkov:

According to the Center for the Study and Forecasting of Social Processes as of April 12, Vladimir Yakovlev’s rating reached sixty-five percent. If a candidate from the united democratic forces appeared on the scene, twenty-five to thirty percent of St. Petersburg residents would vote for him, which means that not all is lost. However, in the tired city, it seems that there is no such candidate.

The author of the “Our City is Tired” logo, Marat Gelman, developed a whole concept for changing the self-awareness of St. Petersburg residents.

Marat Gelman:

One of the tasks that this campaign was supposed to solve was to separate St. Petersburg from Yakovlev. It was clear that St. Petersburg is a city of lovers in their city, right? For example, if in Moscow the majority of people have a rather detached attitude towards their city, and there are some cities where the majority do not seem to like their city, then in St. Petersburg everyone identifies themselves with the city. That is: I am my wife’s husband, which means I am a resident of St. Petersburg. And then - I’m Russian... I’ve only seen this in Odessa, by the way.

And, of course, any critical appeal towards the situation of the city was immediately associated with... what is this, they scold me, and I will defend myself, and so on, and so on.

Therefore, this line, which was supposed to run parallel to Matvienko’s advertising line, its task was, of course, to show that the city and Yakovlev are different. St. Petersburg is three hundred years old. What does Yakovlev have to do with this? Peter is a hero city. What does Yakovlev have to do with this? Peter the Great was built by Peter the Great, Catherine gained fame, etc. What does Yakovlev have to do with this?

That is, this program was not even entirely elective. Peter, of course, needs some kind of catharsis. Peter must deal with what is happening within him. The city must figure out what is good, what is bad, what has to do with the individual, what has to do with today, who is the governor of St. Petersburg.

Victor Rezunkov:

Governor Vladimir Yakovlev responded to Marat Gelman for his explicit logos. A new advertisement was placed on the fifth St. Petersburg television channel. Against the background of road builders, under the inscription “Our city is tired,” another inscription appeared - “Petersburg lives.” For St. Petersburg residents, this seems to have been an amazing discovery.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Our correspondent Viktor Rezunkov spoke about the pre-election situation in St. Petersburg.

The past elections, Duma and presidential, revealed many problems in the electoral legislation of Russia. Relapses in the registration system are preventing hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Russians from participating in elections. Report by Sergei Sergeev.

Sergey Sergeev:

Twice, first in the parliamentary and now in the presidential elections, I was refused to vote. At polling station number 2049, at the place where my registration expired, the chairman of the commission, Alexander Boshchansky, calls me a homeless person who needs to be fined, and does not want to issue a written decision to refuse to vote, although this is provided for by the election law.

The Central Election Commission said over the phone that in such a situation they should be allowed to vote, but they cannot challenge the decision of the precinct.

Before the elections, the CEC instructed local commissions to rely on the constitution and the Election Law, which ties voting participation to registration. CEC member Olga Volkova explains.

Olga Volkova:

The law states that the lists may include citizens who permanently or primarily reside in a given territory. That is, if he went to another territory, is abroad, on a business trip, in a hospital, anywhere, if he is not at his place of primary residence, then he had to take an absentee certificate and vote where he is currently located. This is the situation described by law.

Now we are considering a situation where - yes, indeed, he left and was unable to take an absentee certificate. What's in this situation? In this case, we say... the law terribly says: “Only with an absentee certificate.”

But there is also a constitution. There are constitutional norms that proclaim fundamental rights, the political rights of citizens to vote and be elected. And in each specific case, we explained to all the chairmen of the commissions that the precinct commission is not a chairman, not a secretary, not a member of the commission - it must meet collectively and resolve the issue.

Sergey Sergeev:

But even those Russians who took care of participating in the elections, went to a notary, issued a power of attorney and received absentee ballots by mail, speak of a violation of voting rights.

During the last parliamentary elections, an employee of one of the Moscow joint-stock companies, a former resident of Tula, Vitaly Tseplyaev, felt left out.

Vitaly Tseplyaev:

I was allowed to vote only for the federal list, that is, for the party list, and they said that I could not vote for the deputy who was running in the constituency in which I was temporarily registered. I asked why. They told me: “that’s the order.” I asked to prove that this was really the case, they brought me some kind of book similar to the Election Law, there, indeed, was a provision that a person receiving an absentee ballot has the right to vote only within the district in which this coupon is valid.

Therefore, if I am registered in Tula, then in Moscow I cannot vote for a deputy in a single-mandate constituency, I can only vote for a party list.

Sergey Sergeev:

There will be too much confusion if local election ballots are sent along with absentee ballots, says CEC member Vladimir Butaev.

Vladimir Butaev:

If a citizen leaves and takes an absentee certificate with him, he thereby, as it were, limits his voting rights in this district. This is a requirement of the law, which specifically states that only persons permanently or predominantly residing in the territory of a given electoral district vote in a single-mandate electoral district.

Another question is that, in fact, the law itself on freedom of movement and choice of place of residence on the territory of the Russian Federation does not stipulate what primary residence is.

Sergey Sergeev:

CEC member, lawyer Vladimir Butaev agrees that the law, of course, is not ideal, and advises resolving conflicts in court. The CEC, according to Vladimir Butaev, does not write laws, but only applies them. And while this state body or its employees themselves could come up with proposals for reforming the election procedure, the election commission offers dissatisfied voters to deal with this in order to achieve protection of their rights through the judicial branch of government, and, possibly, a change in the law. Vladimir Butaev speaks.

Vladimir Butaev:

If a citizen comes to a polling station and is specifically refused, for one reason or another, which he considers unlawful, he has the right to go to court, and the court is obliged, in accordance with this rule, to immediately consider his appeal and make a decision on the merits. That is, either oblige the election commission to allow this person to vote, or make a decision that the election commission has the right to refuse him fairly.

Sergey Sergeev:

Central Election Commission employees recall several cases when citizens sought participation in elections through the courts. But it turned out that in Moscow, for example, the Gagarinsky court, on the day of the presidential election, worked only until six o’clock in the evening, and the judge proposed to consider applications within three days, which deprived the voter of the opportunity to vote.

The institution of registration exists in many countries, including for voting. But in states that are considered democratic, there are not as many restrictions on registration as in Russia, says Dutchman Diederik Lohmann, director of the Moscow branch of the international human rights organization Helsinki Watch.

Diederik Lohmann:

In Holland, if you move from one city to another, you don’t have such difficulties. Because you just came to the local municipality to an official and said: “I now live on such and such a street, register me.”

Sergey Sergeev:

According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, last year two and a half million people were detained for violating passport rules in the Russian Federation. Citizens have already reached the Constitutional Court and achieved the abolition of the temporary registration period limit, although this is not taken into account by local authorities.

But, as the members of the Central Election Commission (and all the members of the commission are lawyers) advise, if you disagree with the actions of the authorities, you can challenge them in the courts.

Mikhail Sokolov:

This was a report by Sergei Sergeev.

Another identified problem is fraud and pressure on voters. In the Moscow studio of Radio Liberty - a member of the bureau of the Yabloko party, one of the creators of the current election laws, Professor Viktor Sheinis. Together with him is Alexander Saliy, Chairman of the Duma Commission for the Analysis of Electoral Practices, a faction of the Communist Party.

Alexander Ivanovich Saliy, your observers - the Communist Party - identified numerous violations of the law during the presidential elections. From your point of view, what methods of violation are most numerous now?

Alexander Saliy:

Well, the most common is administrative pressure on election commissions and directly on voters. There are two factors here. In the current legislation, the link in the formation of election commissions turned out to be weak, which can be ignored at various levels, especially at the local level, when the administration, as a direct obstacle, does not allow representatives of socio-political associations and parties to be included in the election commission. This was very clearly manifested, in particular, in Tatarstan, in the republican subjects of the Russian Federation. And - to form commissions from the composition of those people who are in direct administrative dependence.

So I showed you that the election commissions in the city of Kazan, for the most part, are formed from representatives of the housing department: eight carpenters, three plumbers, one engineer who heads the commission. Well, naturally, they will do exactly what is necessary.

The second level of administrative pressure is direct pressure on the voter. Not even with the help of persuasion, promises, but also direct threats. “If you don’t vote for this or that candidate, that means you won’t get... hay, a tractor, you won’t get seeds, and everything else.” This is especially true in villages.

In cities, of course, administrative pressure is much less; legislators tried to make the law in such a way as to reduce the possibilities, or methods, of falsification.

And now there remains a method that does not have a reverse effect in our practice. That is, the impact on these violations is precisely administrative pressure.

Regarding the Republic of Tatarstan, I can say that it is absolutely new, prominent and obvious in relation to others... this is ballot stuffing. That is, in our opinion, a whole system was created in which the corresponding votes were added to certain candidates. Hence the abnormally high level of turnout in Tatarstan and the abnormally large gap between the candidates - well, the two main opponents.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis, do you have any additions, since Yabloko also observed - naturally - the last elections?

Victor Sheinis:

Well, first of all, I agree with almost everything that Alexander Ivanovich just said. Our observations fall in the same direction and confirm approximately the same conclusions. And I think that, of course, the election legislation needs to be adjusted. This is a huge amount of work. And, despite the fact that Russia has - I have already spoken here on Svoboda - electoral legislation, one of the most detailed, developed from the electoral laws of democratic countries. However, the legislative work itself is certainly not completed. And there are huge challenges here.

But the most important thing, in my opinion, is to create a public atmosphere of intolerance towards violations of the electoral law. And if, in fact, the results were falsified, at least in a small number of polling stations, then, in my opinion, this deserves a very painful slap on the wrist.

Alexander Saliy:

I think that if those things that we identify in the presidential elections... and I, as the chairman of the commission, have already received Zyuganov’s statement and all the materials, now we are simply considering... And if, contrary to promises, Alexander Albertovich brushes this off, then we, of course, will file a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on the inaction of this Central Election Commission, which simply does not want to deal with this matter.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Question to Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis. Tell me, from your point of view, is liability for violations of election legislation really too lenient in Russia now? Shouldn't the administrative norms that were introduced in the fall be replaced, taking into account practice, with criminal punishment?

After all, we see, in general, that in a number of regions it turns out that criminal communities are simply being created to rig elections, led by local leaders.

Victor Sheinis:

We were preparing a series of accompanying laws. These were amendments to the code of administrative offenses. This was a separate law on administrative liability of legal entities and amendments to the criminal code. The first two laws passed, the criminal code stalled. It was adopted by both the Duma and the Federation Council, and “veted” by the president. The veto was imposed when it was too late to do anything.

I believe that the current composition of the Duma should return to the criminal code. Until our judicial system is put in order, I believe there will be no real fight against offenders.

But what, it seems to me, is within the power of political organizations, in the power of communists, in the power of Yabloko, in the power of other democratic parties that do not consider themselves firmly connected with the executive branch, is to create a dense network of controllers. These are observers, these are members of commissions with an advisory voice. It is necessary to ensure that, in accordance with the law, representatives of the parties represented in the Duma are on all commissions.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Question to Alexander Salii. Still, about the extent and inevitability of punishment?..

Alexander Saliy:

I would probably agree that, indeed, broad public control and interest in obtaining the votes that voters cast are one of the foundations. I would highlight two main factors here. This is, indeed, the inevitability of punishment for violation. Let it be minimal.

I came across this... Here, polling station 434, where the ballots were not packaged, the chairman of the commission was the head teacher of the school. Well, she was simply given the task of making such and such a percentage, and she did it. Well, they were too lazy to at least scatter these ballots into bundles. So, for three days she just cried. “This means I’ll suddenly go to court? I’ll be fined there,” and so on. That is, a person’s social status is immediately violated. And if there is no inevitability, naturally it gives rise to impunity.

But I do not agree with another position - that the severity of the punishment is not a factor. Well, let's take this thing - the production of additional ballots. So I submitted a statement to the prosecutor’s office and the State Security Committee on the 19th that three million additional ballots had been produced in Kazan.

In fact, the prepared additional ballot is a toolkit for seizing power. This is a state crime. That is, it doesn’t matter whether you seize power with a tank or a ballot, but this is already a state crime.

What is in our law? I remember how we discussed this issue, where to include it, in the criminal code. Today I see in our administrative code the penalty is four times the minimum salary. But this is funny!

Therefore, I think that this, let’s say, hierarchy of responsibility for certain violations of the election legislation... it, I think, will sober up a lot of people.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Perhaps the last two questions, please answer briefly. Viktor Leonidovich, how do you feel about the idea of ​​categorically prohibiting any officials from participating in the election campaign at all? If you want to campaign somewhere, don’t go on vacation, but submit your resignation letter.

And it turns out that the governor says: “I campaign during the lunch break,” or “I campaign in the evening,” but he is the governor all the time.

And secondly - about the parliamentary immunity, first of all, of members of the Federation Council, which they use to organize “elections”, in quotes?

Victor Sheinis:

On the first question. I think that it would still be wrong to prohibit a large category of citizens from participating in the campaign. First, in the 1997 law on guarantees, we introduced some norms, then we weakened these norms. Because it turned out that a deputy who holds a public position of category “A” does not have the right to engage in political work, that is, what he should do. The line is very thin, but introducing a categorical universal ban would, in my opinion, be a deviation from the constitution.

In addition, I believe that even if the governor - let's imagine such a situation - went on vacation, this does not mean that his leverage over the situation has become less, or significantly reduced. An ace is also an ace in Africa. And voters know that the governor will return.... Or even not the governor, but the village head, will return and will not give hay after the elections, as Alexander Ivanovich spoke about - then going on vacation will not help the matter.

As for parliamentary immunity. I think there is a lot of demagogy around this. Let's take a specific example. The Duma, throughout its existence, has received requests from the prosecutor’s office to revoke immunity four times. Two times out of two she gave consent if there were serious reasons.

To deprive a deputy of immunity means, in essence, to make him defenseless in relation to all kinds, including provocations of local authorities.

But with the Federation Council it’s a different matter. And here my position - in general, in principle - is more radical. The way the Federation Council will be formed is not a parliamentary institution. A parliamentarian or senator must have immunity. The governor shouldn't have it. But our decision is absurd, made under enormous pressure, moreover, before the dissolution of the Duma in 1995, before the end of its term of office, when the Law on the Federation Council was approved, which, in essence, made it the chamber of chiefs. Here we need to take more radical measures.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Alexander Saliy, your answer.

Alexander Saliy:

Regarding the first question, I also, in general, agree that, indeed, such a mass of people cannot be legally limited. And then, if we ultimately move towards a party political organization of society, then, naturally, every person, every boss will belong to some kind of party. It would be absurd to force him to fold his party card.

It would be a different matter if there were sufficiently clear mechanisms for limiting the use of one’s official position, but here, I agree, the most severe measures are needed, up to and including dismissal from positions or colossal fines.

Mikhail Sokolov:

That is, he gathered, say, the heads of district administrations, gave them instructions to ensure voting, they found out about this and were removed from office through the court?

Alexander Saliy:

Absolutely right.

Victor Sheinis:

To a large extent, on the basis of current legislation, this can be done if there is the will.

Alexander Saliy:

Yes. But it doesn’t work yet; there’s not enough will.

Mikhail Sokolov:

What about immunity?

Alexander Saliy:

Well... And immunity, I completely agree with that... I live in a region that is quite hostile to my political personality, and I think that if I didn’t have immunity, I would be practically unable to do anything.

Victor Sheinis:

They would have found drugs or a revolver on you....

Alexander Saliy:

Yes, I can tell you the same thing openly. A month ago, after the Duma elections, when I announced violations in the Duma elections in the Republic of Tatarstan, Mintimer Sharipovich did not come up with anything smart, how to openly express a threat to me at a session of the State Council, in front of television.

“Some left for Moscow,” he says, without giving a last name, “forgetting that they had relatives living in Tatarstan.”

And this is what this threat resulted in. My daughter graduated from school with a gold medal, college with honors, with one B, but she cannot find a job.

Therefore, I think - yes, the deputy mandate protects me and allows me to protect many people who are simply subjected to repression after the elections.

Mikhail Sokolov:

What about the governors, the president?

Alexander Saliy:

As for the governors, I completely agree with Viktor Leonidovich. Governors are the executive branch and must implement the laws. And they often block or lobby for those laws that they...

Mikhail Sokolov:

Is the Federation Council elected?

Alexander Saliy:

Elected.

Mikhail Sokolov:

The problems of electoral legislation reform in connection with the past elections were discussed by Viktor Sheinis, Yabloko, and Alexander Saliy, Communist Party.

In Mari El, the authorities decided to deprive the residents of the republic of the right to elect heads of districts and cities. Radio Liberty special correspondent Vladimir Dolin has returned from Yoshkar-Ola.

Vladimir Dolin:

During the thirtieth, extraordinary session of the State Assembly of the Republic of Mari El, parliamentarians by a majority vote adopted, in the first reading, two amendments to the constitution of the republic. The essence of these amendments is that now the heads of administrations of districts and cities of republican subordination can be appointed, rather than elected by the population. In short, direct presidential rule by the President of the Republic of Mari El, Vyacheslav Kislitsin, is being introduced in the regions of the republic.

Not all heads of administration agree with this. Four of them - the heads of administrations of the capital of the republic, Yoshkar-Ola, the Volzhsky and Zvenigovsky districts, as well as the city of Volzhsk - appealed to the acting President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, with a request to introduce direct presidential rule throughout the republic. The meaning of the appeal to the guarantor of the constitution is explained by the head of the Volzhsk city administration, Nikolai Svistunov.

Nikolay Svistunov:

This is a cry of despair. We seriously, of course, did not and do not imagine that direct presidential rule would be introduced. We just wanted to highlight the problem not only of the Republic of Mari El. Such situations are occurring in a number of regions today. We want the new president, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, to understand that something needs to be done in the regions, something needs to be done with the authorities.

If we want to strengthen statehood, then all of us - including those who signed the appeal - are ready to be appointed under the condition of full vertical authority. One president is elected by the people. Regional leaders are appointed by Putin. Putin's representative in the Mari El Republic appoints the head of the administration. That is, the vertical must be completely rigid and centralized.

It is enough to have local self-government, perhaps both in the village and in the township. Perhaps this should be done. But state power should be the most brutal vertical. And then we get the following option. They are trying to appoint us, but the president is elected for four years.

If the republic is lucky, like Chuvashia and other regions, for example, the region begins to move forward. And if you are unlucky, then the region begins to sharply lose its pace of development.

Therefore, today we need to clearly know and clearly define ourselves. If we are not ready for democracy today, if today the population does not accept democracy, and we see that strict centralization of state power would be better for the cause, then we are ready to appoint everyone absolutely. We want to know certain rules of the game. And these rules of the game should be developed by the central government in Moscow and, as quickly as possible, amend the Constitution of the Russian Federation or make a new law. But something must be done about this issue.

Vladimir Dolin:

Forty-five deputies voted for amendments to the constitution of the republic, de facto eliminating self-government at the district level, and eleven voted against. Until recently, an opposition formed in the State Assembly, obedient to the will of the president. Seventy-five percent of the republic’s population lives in the districts and cities headed by disgraced heads of administration.

Mikhail Sokolov:

A detailed report by Vladimir Dolin from the Republic of Mari El will be aired in the “Elections 2000” program on April 20.

In our next program, April 20, we will also continue the story about the struggle for the post of governor of St. Petersburg.