A year of great bargaining

Apparently, in March - April, amendments to federal legislation will be finally adopted, obliging regional parliaments to be elected using a mixed system - so that at least 50% of deputies are elected from party lists. The idea, which was stubbornly blocked by the Kremlin in 1994 - 2000, until the “center” had a locally popular “party in power,” with the advent of “Unity” took possession of the best minds of the presidential administration. It is planned to extend the mixed principle to elections, the decision on the appointment of which will be made after the law comes into force. That is, the elections of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly will most likely be held according to a new scheme. And a big bargain will inevitably unfold around this - in fact, it has already begun. It is not difficult to guess the subject of the bargaining: the main desire of the St. Petersburg (as well as any other) governor is to serve another term in his office.

Until recently, most experts believed that the federal law (the so-called “Boos amendment,” adopted a year ago to ensure a third term for Mintimer Shaimiev and Yuri Luzhkov) gives Vladimir Yakovlev, who is now ruling in the “second circle,” the opportunity to be elected again. But after the decision of the Supreme Court concerning elections in Yakutia and the scandalous “Mikhail Nikolaev case,” it became clear that not everything is so simple.
The Supreme Court decided: if a subject of the federation established by law restrictions prohibiting holding the governor's office for no more than two consecutive terms, then they are the ones that apply. Which means: without changing the St. Petersburg City Charter, the governor will not see a third term. It is possible that he will not see it even if the charter is changed: in the last one and a half to two years, the decisive factor in this issue is often not the law at all, but the position of the Kremlin. But without changing the charter, the Kremlin will not save. This means that we need to bargain with the opposition and somehow gain two-thirds of the parliamentary votes necessary to amend the “city Constitution.” This is where the introduction of party lists comes up as a completely suitable subject of bargaining.
There is no doubt that the political forces opposed to the governor have a vested interest in introducing a mixed electoral system. And the point is not only that they represent federal parties, such as Yabloko or SPS (and Sergei Mironov’s movement “Will of St. Petersburg” dreams of federal status). The fact is that in elections under the current majoritarian system, when deputies are elected only in single-mandate constituencies, the outcome of the elections is increasingly determined by very specific factors.
One of them is the notorious “administrative resource,” when the current government provides “its” candidates in the districts with most favored nation treatment. (Organization of meetings with voters under the guise of meetings of education, healthcare, cultural workers, distribution of election materials through schools, clinics, housing offices, social services, campaigning in state media under the guise of covering “planned activities” in amounts many times greater than the capabilities of competitors.) In parallel, “symmetrical” measures are also applied - making it difficult for competitors to conduct a campaign.
Well, the second factor, which is increasingly influencing the election results, is the open “purchase” of votes through the distribution of “charitable aid,” mostly food or medicine. Let us note that at the elections of the Legislative Assembly there will no longer be early voting - which, as practice has shown, leads directly to the “conveyor belt” purchase of citizens’ votes, but there is no doubt that all this will be done in advance. Actually, the technique has already been worked out - the district is “fed”, as when fishing. A public organization is created in advance, firmly connected with the future candidate, and “help” is distributed on its behalf. When the time comes for the election campaign, all that remains is to remind citizens about the “benefactor”.
Naturally, only candidates from the “party in power” can afford this - a necessary condition for the success of the “fishing” tactics is the inaction of election commissions, which will diligently turn a blind eye to it. Some of the potential candidates have been carrying out similar work for a long time - “feeding” voters under the guise of suddenly appearing philanthropy. But not all voters can understand that they are dealing with “dirty technologies” and vulgar bribery, and that the candidate who bought their vote today will sell them tomorrow...
In the described conditions, the transition to “list” elections, the result of which is almost beyond the control of the city administration, is very, very relevant from the point of view of combating “dirty technologies” and protecting the voting rights of citizens. And for the opposition, which does not have administrative resources, it is vital. Just as important as for Vladimir Yakovlev is the third term.
However, the exchange turns out to be not very simple. An additional issue complicating matters is the size of the Legislative Assembly. Now, as you know, there are 50 deputies. If a list system is introduced, two options are possible. The first is that the number of deputies increases to 100, and, in addition to the current 50 “single-member” deputies, another 50 deputies are elected from lists. The second is that the number of deputies is maintained, therefore, 25 “single-mandate members” and 25 “list members” are elected.
The first option is more profitable for the opposition, which gets the opportunity to earn more deputy seats, the second - for Smolny, which is easier to control elections with a smaller number of elected deputies. In addition, in the second option, when the number of single-mandate constituencies is halved, they can be combined in such a way that the current “opposition” deputies will be forced to fight with each other. Most likely, the majority of deputies are unlikely to want to enlarge districts and, accordingly, fight for a mandate not with a little-known rival, but with an existing and “promoted” colleague, but “pro-governor” deputies may well be promised an adequate increase in administrative support - after which they will vote for whatever they want...
PS Recently information appeared that Vladimir Yakovlev has already begun discussing with “his” deputies from the United Russia bloc the topic of changing the charter and lifting the ban for his third term. The year of great bargaining has begun...

Boris VISHNEVSKY