Free people of the North. Why did the residents of the NAO voted against amendments

Most Russians approved amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The changes supported 77.92%of the voters, 21.27%opposed. The northern regions in this vote distinguished themselves as a low turnout: in the Murmansk region, 45.15%came to the plots, 46.07%in Karelia , 49.34% in the Novogorod region . The only region that voted against changing the constitution was the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO) - 54.57%of voters cast their vote there. The correspondent of the North. Realiy talked with local residents and experts about why the residents of the NAO voted against the "zeroing" of Vladimir Putin.

“Free people of the North! The results of our vote can be interpreted in different ways, but the fact remains-our district is the only one where they were not afraid,” such a post appeared in the Nenets District and Naryan-Mar “Vkontakte” on the afternoon of July 2, after the official announcement of the voting results for amendments to the Russian Constitution.

“You are a stronghold of democracy. I want to move from Moscow to Naryan-Mar,” one of the users wrote.

In the region with a population of 44 thousand people, 58.28% of voters took part in the vote , of which 54.57% spoke out against amendments, 44.42%. 205 ballots are spoiled.

"We do not live on the moon"

On May 19, 2020, Victoria Bobrova , the Nenets social activist and entrepreneur, like many other residents of Naryan-Mar, went to the square in front of the meeting of NAO deputies demanding the abolition of a referendum. The issue of its holding began to be discussed after May 13, 2020, when the interim leaders of the Arkhangelsk region and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug signed a memorandum of the unification of two Arctic regions. After a sharply negative reaction, representatives of the public and residents of both regions were transferred. But residents of the district did not cease to be outraged by the policy of federal and regional authorities.

On June 12, “in a wave of protest and consolidation against the unification”, a regional social movement “Protection and Development of the NAO” appeared, in whose activities anyone can take part. Victoria Bobrova became one of the co -chairs of the movement.

- At the first meeting, we decided that we will campaign against amendments, as well as against the unification. Of course, there were no mass events, only small meetings, the distribution of leaflets, work in social networks. We are not limited to referendum or voting on the Constitution. For example, the movement initiated, and the Communist Party faction introduced a bill to the regional meeting, which provides for direct elections of the Governor of the NAO ( now the head of the region is elected by the district meeting of deputies. - SR ). This is our message to the federal center - we are against the policy being carried out and want us to be heard, ”says Victoria Bobrova.

Victoria believes that the result of voting on amendments to the Constitution could be even more protesting, if not for the efforts of the acting governor in direct agitation for amendments.

- If the acting governor, Yuri Mostless , would not fly around the district helicopter before voting on amendments and would not promise FAP ( paramedic obstetrician point. - SR ) to build, there is a culture house, preferences to some municipalities, then there would be even more protest numbers. In the places that he visited, there were more those who voted for amendments, ”she says.

Victoria Bobrova emphasizes that the past vote was only partly by voting for "for" and "against" amendments. Residents of the NAO spoke frankly against some amendments, in general, preserving the content of the new constitution, obvious indifference.

Actually, people do not care what is changing there in the Constitution

-Still, the amendments have a 67th article, paragraph 1 of which refers to some "federal territories" that can be created "in accordance with federal law." But there is no federal law itself. People reasonably fear that one fine morning after the referendum will wake up not in the territory of the NAO, but on a certain "federal territory". Now no referendum will be needed so that the district ceases to exist. And these fears are preserved in our country. Some people voted specifically against this amendment. The rest of the amendments were somehow not particularly discussed, because there was nothing specific about the situation of indigenous peoples, neither worse nor better for people, including indigenous peoples, will not become from them. But in the case of unification with Arkhangelsk, it will become worse for everyone. So if it were not for this story with the union of the NAO and the Arkhangelsk region, people would vote yesterday like the whole country, not so protested. Because actually people do not care what is changing there in the Constitution. We are more worried about the future of the district, development prospects and standard of living.

Victoria is sure that most of the voters wanted to speak out specifically against a possible unification with the Arkhangelsk region and against the current system for the appointment of the heads of regions.

We do not need Varangians who are subordinate to Moscow

- Of course, we do not live on the moon, and we understand that all amendments were accepted, but we expressed our opinion, gave a clear signal of the federal government. I hope they will be able to understand that candidates for the post of heads of regions - both NAO and Arkhangelsk - must be changed. And a policy regarding the appointment of the heads of regions must be changed. We do not need Varangians, obeying Moscow, not interested in preserving and developing regions, ”Bobrova emphasized.

Vadim Glukhov, the head of the Timan Village Council of the NAO, where at the end of May members of the United Russia Party recording applications for leaving the cell in protest against the unification of the regions, voted against amendments, because "there is no progress or movement".

- The new leadership of the district is almost constantly sent from Moscow, people do not like it. I’m talking about Tsybulsky (the acting head of the Arkhangelsk region, ex-governor of the NAO), the soulless (acting head of the NAO), before that they sent the governor from Arkhangelsk, after which some kind of Pitersky team came with Koshin. The Nenets Autonomous Okrug is guided by what they want. The new leadership drags his assistants, removes the current ones, begins in a new one, Katavasia. Every cockroach jumped from the stove to the bench, knows what to do with the district and "for the benefit of the inhabitants", without feeling people without traveling around the territory. This is called "one stick, three strings - I am the master of the whole country." They behave like the owners: they earn, drag their companies, their entrepreneurs, drag their relatives to their own surcharges to pensions, leave, or are expelled by the president, but there is no sense. Neither progress nor move forward, ”says Vadim Glukhov.

He is sure that if Alexander Tsybulsky remained as the acting head of the region, who, before his appointment in the Arkhangelsk region, worked in the district for 2.5 years, then residents would support amendments.

- He seemed so promising an official, such a right one, and a person seems to be normal and decent, communicated well with people. He promised a lot to everyone, including that there would be no association, and when he left for Arkhangelsk, for some reason he wanted to unite. Thus, he crossed out everything that he earned here: respect, some kind of love for himself from amorous inhabitants. Now the inhabitants of the NAO are looking for negative aspects in it. If this had not been, I think, residents would support the amendments to the Constitution if there were no memorandum to the unification of NAO and AO, explains Glukhov. -In the changes to the Constitution, a controversial issue is the 67th article, territorial, that is, the creation of some new territories without agreement with people. The question is not even about zeroing. After all, they did not vote against Putin, I personally do not at present at the other president of the Russian Federation, not against the state and its integrity, voted against the fact that the deaf, blind and dumb in the leadership of the district, the region and even in state authorities. And all of them have no money on others except themselves!

The result of a "crazy" campaign

The Arkhangelsk political scientist and political strategist Andrei Churakov believes that the protest voting in the NAO is primarily explained by the extremely unpopular, "crazy" campaign for uniting subjects. Public consolidation in the district reached such a scale that it did not allow the notorious administrative resource to work.

- The admin resource was included everywhere, including in the NAO - both in commercial corporations and in power structures. But in the NAO, unlike the rest of Russia, this resource was not enough to reach the figure of approval. The protest potential, which has formed in the district over the past two months amid attempts to unite with the Arkhangelsk region, is too large.

The campaign against the union covered all segments of the district of the district - from ordinary citizens to members of the political elite.

- Everyone protests, including at least at least at the bottom level, representatives of the election commissions. They simply did not allow manipulating the voting results. The communists, whose positions are very strong in the district, are well represented in the election commissions. And since they had a decision to vote against amendments at the Central Committee level, they tried to control the work of the commissions. Neither the stuffing or the administrative drive to the polling stations helped, ”says Churikov. - The failure of the "all -Russian voting" in the NAO is a powerful blow to the reputation of the entire event. Even one of the smallest subject of the Federation, which voted against, breaks the entire slender concept of a nationwide recognition of amendments.

Protest north

Political scientist, expert on regional policy and election campaigns, Alexander Kynev , who previously repeatedly expressed about the illegitimacy of the entire “event” to amend the Constitution, is sure that the result of voting in the NAO is only the most acute manifestation of protest sentiments in the country as a whole. He believes that the results voiced by the CEC corresponds to reality, although they could “pull something” in the right direction in the NAO.

The volume of public resistance turned out to be such that it was not even possible to falsify

- Part of the votes for amendments was obtained as a result of administrative coercion. As practice shows, it is most often suffered by workers in rigid corporate structures, primarily oil workers. According to them, as well as by state employees, the campaign was conducted. But people live in a particular region, and they are the same patriots of the district as other residents. Someone succumbed, someone is not. So it is significant that the volume of public resistance turned out to be such that it was not even possible to falsify.

Kynev admits that it was the administrative resource as a whole in the northern regions that helped add a few percent in the final result for amendments.

- In the whole, in the Russian north, the volume of distortion was minimal. This can be seen in all regions. The ratio of approximately 60–65 per 35–40 against is a normal result, without tough, by lawlessness, falsifications. They were probably within 5-6%, within the framework of the prevailing political practice.

Kynev considers much more important to strengthen protest sentiments not so much in individual regions as in the country as a whole.

- Yesterday's vote throughout the country was a referendum about trust - distrust. In the context of the pandemic, administrative mobilization opposed a spontaneous protest. Because there was no organized protest anywhere. There were no headquarters, there was no united protest campaign, there were no parties, no leaders. All that was was the communication of people in social networks. Therefore, the result of spontaneous public protest is colossal. What happened is the moral victory of opponents of amendments, ”says Kynev.