Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 3 – Russian moderate
opposition parties are losing support while “the activity of parties advancing
more radical positions is growing,” according to Aleksandr Kynyev, a specialist
on regional development, reporting on the findings of the first report on the
current election cycle prepared by the Committee on Civic Initiatives.
In an article in “Vedomosti” this
week, Kynyev draws that and four other conclusions on the basis of an
examination of the electoral campaigns now going on in advance of the September
13 vote, “the last major voting before the regional and federal elections of
2016” (vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2015/06/30/598724-vibori-rastuschei-polyarizatsii).
The five trends he identifies are as
follows:
·
First,
he points out, there have appeared “new limitations” on who can be involved in
campaigns. Not only are foreigners excluded but so too are “’foreign agent’”
NGOs. They cannot contribute to parties or candidates any longer. “All this changes
nothing it practice: what is being prohibited in fact never was, Kynev says;
but these new limitations are “obviously directed at he further stigmatization
of independent pubic organizations.”
·
Second,
there has been an expansion in the number of regions where direct elections of
the governors by the population have been eliminated.
·
Third,
there has been “a broadening of the actual control of the executive vertical
over the system of local self-administration” which has allowed regional
governments to eliminate direct elections of the heads of municipal formations.
This year, for the first time, there will not be any direct elections in many
regional centers, and there are a number of efforts to eliminate elections for
members of city councils, although these steps like the others have sparked
dissent.
·
Fourth,
Moscow has cut the share of deputies in regional parliaments who must be
elected by party list from 40 percent to 25 percent. (In Moscow and St.
Petersburg, even that lower limit has been eliminated.) As Kynev points out, this
step “reduces the institutional role in the political system of parties as
such.” At the same time, this change increases the influence of governors who
control the administrative resources such as registration of candidates that
gives them a greater voice in who runs and who wins.
·
And
fifth, the analyst continues, as a result of these changes, many parties have
curtailed their activities or even stopped them altogether. At the same time,
these changes have made it more difficult for new parties to form, slowing the
growth of their number over the last year or so. And that combination means
that there has been a falloff in the activities of “’the moderate opposition’”
while there has been a growth in that “of parties which express clearly defined
ideological positions and frequently have a radical point of view on many
foreign and domestic issues.”
Those changes in this electoral cycle are
likely to have an impact on the next one as well, marginalizing parties as a
whole and creating a situation in which more radical groups will marginalize
themselves in the eyes of the population,
Kynev suggests.
No comments:
Post a Comment