Putin's agreement to become prime minister "as if from United Russia" makes our political system similar to the one-and-a-half-party analogs that successfully existed in countries such as Japan, Mexico and Italy. A one-and-a-half-party system is usually called one in which one mass party dominates, including several competing factions.

Russia is on the path of creating a one-and-a-half party system – this is the diagnosis of many political scientists. The stability of such a system in our country strongly depends on the economic situation.

Admission to the United Russia party has resumed after a two-month break. The break was an attempt to contain the wave of people wishing to join the party that arose after Vladimir Putin's decision to head its election list. Now the admission rules have been tightened, but this will not reduce, but rather even increase, the opportunistic demand for the right party cards. It is difficult to talk about the ideological commitment of the new supporters not only because nothing prevented them from joining the party earlier, and not only because it is difficult to talk about any ideology of United Russia.

Sociological surveys indicate that the absolute majority of the population is apolitical (only 2-3% would consider joining a party, and trust in parties is consistently low). The high level of trust and love of citizens for the president only confirms this: along with their love, citizens entrust the president with responsibility for themselves, in the spirit of the prevailing paternalism. Putin is perceived not as the best politician, but as a boss with the greatest administrative resource: citizens turn to him when they are underpaid or when the sewer breaks.

Until 2007, United Russia was a rather specific career lift: since the party did not participate in the formation of the government and was not a personnel reserve for the authorities, the main advantage for its supporters was the use of a certain average administrative resource, which made it possible to conduct business more calmly, including receiving lobbying preferences in the Duma, regional parliaments and administrations. The A Just Russia project for some time called into question even these small gains of United Russia: people who needed administrative resources were confused by the seemingly emerging choice between two parties in power. Putin's decisive step put everything in its place in the blink of an eye: it became clear where to join.

The main party is sensitive to (even to the point of appropriation) any important initiatives of the opposition appendage - one or several parties deprived of real political power, but reflecting the views of a part of the population. Such a mass party by definition cannot be united - both in Japan and in Italy these were multi-factional associations in which various groups agreed on a horizontal level. It must be said that in both places such parties were created in order to prevent the left (the communists in Italy, the socialists in Japan) from coming to power, and when the threat subsided, the system began to change (in Italy it now consists of two coalition blocs).

Since our party building is carried out "from above", not to mention factions, it is impossible to even create two platforms within the ruling party - any factionalism immediately increases conflict. If in Japan and Italy the ruling party has always been a player, then in Russia it is an instrument. The slogan of the recent parliamentary elections "United Russia is Putin" is true, but is the opposite true?

The Japanese and Italian models may be used by the government's propagandists as examples of solidity. But there are other examples: for example, Indonesia during Suharto's time. There was rather a "non-party" system there, the stability of which depended on the stability of the authoritarian regime. In turn, the regime depended on the economic situation.

From the editors: One and a half minds are better