Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 6 – Local referenda
both where they can be held because opposition parties hold enough seats in
local legislatures to authorize them and where people want them but are opposed
by the power vertical can become an important means of challenging the regime
by teaching people about the virtues of genuine democratic choice, Yuliya
Galyamina says.
Indeed, the co-organizer of the School
of Local Self-Administration says, they have the potential to become black
swans, things that no one takes notice of until after they happen but then everyone
realizes are among the most important developments that have occurred (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/02/05/75392-terapiya-apolitichnosti).
She begins her Novaya gazeta
commentary by arguing that in 2011, “for many it was a discovery that [in
Russia] the people do not decide anything. Now, in 2018, this knowledge has
become a commonplace.” Aleksey Navalny hoped to exploit it by calling for a
boycott: if the voters don’t have a choice, the only way they can send a
message is by not voting.
Such an approach, of course, satisfied
the current ruling circles because it eliminates any “institutional” challenges
to their power. And against
non-institutionalized forces they have the police and the Russian Guard. But as
always happens, Galyamina says, “the black swan flies where no one is expecting
it.”
The Putin regime has focused
extremely carefully on Duma and presidential elections “lest there be a
repetition of the history of six years ago.” But “about the municipal elections
in Moscow, [it] naturally didn’t think. [It} in general doesn’t think much
about such petty matters as self-administration because it doesn’t believe that
the people can resolve things on its own.”
“As a result in Moscow, in about 20
districts, the opposition gained a majority in the local elections.” This is
important because “these genuinely popular politicians have received real
experience of administration and, what is most important, begins from within
the foundations of sovereign democracy by trying to convert it into a real one.”
This has come to a head in decisions
about local referenda. In two districts, the opposition won enough seats to
displace the head while in the rest, it did not and so power is divided. But in
principle at least, referenda can go ahead in the two districts despite
official opposition, Galyamina says.
One might expect the powers that be
to support such referenda because it would increase participation precisely in
places where the opposition is greatest and thus would undermine Navalny’s call
for a boycott. But in fact, the powers
oppose it, demonstrating that “participation is important for the present-day
heads but not participation by citizens opposed to the powers.”
What is much more important, the
civic activist says, is that “the municipal opposition shows to its citizens
much greater trust than does the ruling party.”
It must be clear that its view is that citizens should be able to decide
for themselves and that its elected representatives will do their best to work
with them to those ends.
In this regard, “referenda have yet
another therapeutic and educational meaning: to return or accustom our people
to the lost habits of political participation. And this is extremely important
not simply at the local level. It is also the Achilles’ heel of sovereign
democracy,” she concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment