Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 16 – Although Putin’s
press secretary has said that the Kremlin isn’t going to rate governors on the
basis of turnout in the March elections (interfax.ru/russia/594832), the Kremlin’s obsession with
boosting turnout makes it likely that they will be punished if participation
rates are too low, Anton Chablin says.
But
what is interesting, the Svobodnaya pressa
commentator says, is that they may be punished as well if participation is abnormally
high because that will as it has in the past when turnout in some places was at
or above 100 percent of the electorate call into question the legitimacy of the
voting (svpressa.ru/politic/article/190225/).
The risk of falling into that latter
category is likely greatest among the leaders of the non-Russian republics to
judge both on past practice – they often had artificially high participation
rates – and the new projections of the Petersburg Politics Foundation about
projected turnout in the upcoming vote.
In the past, the republics of the
North Caucasus have often had improbable or even unbelievable participation
rates, in some cases exceeding the number of registered voters, an
embarrassment for Moscow because such reporting calls attention to one of the
ways in which Russian elections are anything but free, fair and honest.
For the March voting, the Petersburg
Politics Foundation projects overall participation to be “a little less than 52
percent,” low by Russian and international standards, far lower than has been
the case recently in other countries and well below the 70 percent rate that
many say the Putin regime wants.
It might be easy for Moscow to make
up some of the difference with enhanced numbers from the non-Russian
republics. The foundation projects that participation
in four of them – Daghestan, Tyva, Karachayevo-Cherkessia, and Chechnya -- will
be above 90 percent and that in three others – Tatarstan, Ingushetia, and North
Ossetia – it will be above 80 percent.
If that turns out to be true, many observers
will assume that the election returns have been fixed and thus decide the voting
outcome was less legitimate than it should be, something that is a key concern
of the Kremlin especially at a time when it is positioning itself as the leader
of the Russians. Getting large votes from non-Russian groups could call that
into question.
But there is another consequence of the
Kremlin’s concern about abnormally high participation rates: If the non-Russian
republics do return such figures, that could become the basis after the
election not only for the replacement of republic heads but possibly for the
amalgamation of non-Russian republics with neighboring and predominantly
Russian regions.
No comments:
Post a Comment