Translated material
This terrible word "boycott"
Why the authorities are so afraid of agitation for refusing to participate in elections and why this is the most effective strategy of the opposition
In fact, the boycott of elections is a very bad decision. And everything must be done so that Alexei Navalny, the toughest and most consistent critic of Vladimir Putin, takes part in the presidential elections in Russia. But since the word "boycott" has already been spoken, one should start thinking about such a development of events with all seriousness. Moreover, the authorities have already begun to make certain efforts so that Navalny's non-admission to the presidential elections does not turn into a boycott of them.
The logic of self-deception
One of the favorite tricks of boycott opponents is to ask the rhetorical question: “Well, what will you achieve by not participating?” And you can always ask in response: what will you achieve with your participation? Leaving aside isolated stories of success in municipal elections, the practice of voting for opposition candidates, but admitted to participate, comes down to two options.
The first is to vote for anyone, as long as he has at least some chance. What's wrong here? Firstly, in the presidential elections in the form in which they have been held for the last 21 years, candidates with chances are simply not allowed, and if Navalny is not allowed to them, then this is the most convincing proof that Putin’s real competitors in the elections will not needed. Secondly, voting for a candidate admitted to the elections only results in the fact that the protest votes cast for Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky or Mironov, following the results of the elections, are declared the votes of their supporters.
The second option is to choose from among the participants proposed by the Kremlin the candidate whose program seems most acceptable, and vote for him. It is assumed that in this way it is supposedly possible to show something to the authorities, and they will not be able not to react when they see how many votes even the “liberal” appointed by herself received.
IN 2012, MANY REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF THE AUTHORITIES SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR PUTIN, SOMETHING WILL CHANGE. THE RESULT IS KNOWN TO EVERYONE
Here we must remember 2012 and Mikhail Prokhorov. Then no one campaigned for a boycott, moreover, the thesis about the salvation of “voting for any other candidate” was generally accepted, and many really believed that if the authorities saw how many people did not want to vote for Putin, then something would change.
The result is known to all. Voting for Prokhorov did not soften the regime in any way, and even vice versa - Crimea, Donbass, Syria and all the accompanying "joys" happened after those elections.
It turns out that the protest vote in 2012 did not give any positive result, regardless of the "liberal" Prokhorov, or for "any other" - Zyuganov or Mironov. Is there any point in deceiving yourself, hoping that this time will be different?
Passive strategy
A boycott should not be confused with a passive refusal to participate in elections. If citizens simply refuse to go to vote, this is called absenteeism. In fact, this is also a fairly effective way to protest - provided that the number of those who took part in the elections decreases in an obvious and significant way. The main advantage of absenteeism is an easily implemented strategy that does not require any activity from the citizen. This technology is effective when there is a minimum turnout threshold, without which the elections are declared invalid.
The last condition is perhaps the most important, but here the current masters of the Kremlin have secured themselves well: there is no lower turnout limit, so the presidential elections will be considered valid even if a few percent of voters take part in them. Thus, no practical results can be achieved by avoiding going to the polling station, and here one should not deceive oneself with fantastic theories: in any case, there will be millions who want to participate in the presidential election.
In addition, in our country a significant number of citizens, for various reasons, constantly evade participation in elections, so that it will hardly be possible to declare all those who did not come to the polls to do so out of principle.
So, the passive refusal of part of the voters to participate in the presidential elections will most likely be ignored by the authorities, even if there is a slight drop in turnout compared to the previous elections.
The main task of the boycott is to discredit the elections, to question their quality, representativeness, legitimacy, honesty.
Boycott as a campaign
What is the difference between absenteeism and boycott in the perspective of the 2018 presidential election? The difference, first of all, is that a political boycott of elections organized by the authorities by the opposition-minded part of society must be officially announced by a candidate who is not allowed to participate in them. And this boycott must be supported by an all-Russian campaign of protest and agitation events, explaining the senselessness of elections with a predetermined result, to which only sparring partners convenient for the future winner are allowed.
If the campaign is loud enough and the boycott supporters succeed in breaking through the wall of silence, the effect could be dramatic.
National presidential elections are the only and main pillar of Putin's regime of personal power; the entire modern political system rests on the myth of nationwide and unconditional support for his policies. Therefore, the main task of the boycott is to discredit the elections, to call into question their quality, representativeness, legitimacy, and honesty.
Elections should become synonymous with scandal, a dubious and dishonest event that is completely controlled by the authorities and therefore does not prove anything to anyone. It is necessary to appeal not only to the citizens of Russia, but also to the whole world - so that as many people, governments and international organizations as possible record the fact that a significant percentage of Russian citizens question the presidential elections and their result.
The presidential elections of 2012, where only candidates approved by the authorities took part, put an end to the prospects for political changes in the country. Then the Kremlin managed to solve both the question of turnout and the question of honesty - after all, if the dissatisfied came to the polls and voted for whom they wanted, then what are the questions about the results? Democracy is democracy: your candidate lost, our candidate won, the conversation is over!
It is this predestination that must be broken. In no case should you allow yourself to play by the proposed rules - simply because the result is known in advance. In no case should you consider as your candidate someone who is convenient for the authorities and does not raise questions from her. By voting for Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky, Mironov, Sobchak, Gordon, Bogdanov, Ivanov, Petrov or Sidorov, only one thing can be achieved - Putin's victory and new disappointment.
Officials are cowardly and not inventive, they like to control everything and implement the same scenario over and over again. If at least something goes wrong, the system will start to feverish
New opportunities
The boycott is the only tactic of political struggle that has never been used in a presidential election in modern Russian history. Therefore, now it is impossible to talk about whether the boycott is effective or useless - simply because there are no facts that could be investigated and forecasts made.
As already mentioned, a boycott is a bad decision, but if there are no other options left, it turns out to be uncontested. The practical organization of the campaign raises many questions, but the authorities have no understanding of how the situation could develop in the event of a large-scale agitation for a boycott of the elections - and this is the main argument for doing just that.
Officials are cowardly and not inventive, they like to control everything and implement the same scenario over and over again. If at least something goes wrong, the system will start to feverish. How to “wet” those who are objectionable, how to turn elections into a farce, and how to portray all those who are dissatisfied with themselves as idiots or foreign spies - the Kremlin knows and knows how. But what to do in a situation where hundreds of thousands, and maybe even millions of people will join the campaign to boycott the elections, they absolutely do not know.
Kremlin propagandists will either scoff or beg: well, here, for you bastards, the best minds of the presidential administration have appointed a liberal candidate - so what else do you need ?!
A boycott means uncertainty, and uncertainty means new opportunities and prospects, which in our conditions is worth a lot. It is possible to replay this whole monstrous vertical of manipulations, falsifications, lies and violence only by breaking the usual framework of political struggle. Actually, this is what the authorities are most afraid of - therefore, they do not need a candidate who is ready to wage a serious fight with Putin in the presidential elections, nor a boycott of these elections, which introduces an element of uncertainty and unpredictability into the most important procedure for the regime.
We must prepare for the worst. Of course, there will be repressions, and hysterics, and arrests, and trials. If the campaign for a boycott develops successfully, the Duma may urgently pass laws criminalizing such calls - and we must be prepared for this. The final “uncovering” will be even worse: there will be status “oppositionists” of the old wave who, for the first time in many years, will receive federal airplay and will wander from one talk show to another, exposing the futility of the boycott. Kremlin propagandists will either scoff or beg: well, here, for you bastards, the best minds of the presidential administration have appointed a liberal candidate - so what else do you need ?!
All this will have to be experienced, endured and not allowed to be deceived. Even controlled elections are experienced by the authorities as stress, and if something does not go according to its plan, this will increase hysteria, aggravate internal contradictions, and force them to do stupid things that may turn out to be irreparable. And - to bring down the entire structure.
* Political scientist, regular contributor to NT.