Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 11 – Yesterday,
opposition candidates won approximately 190 seats in Moscow’s municipal
district elections and what is more took a majority in 14 of the municipal
assemblies, a development some are dismissing given the level of the offices
involved but others see as a “small municipal revolution” that deprives the
Kremlin of a legitimating tool.
Simon Zhavoronkov of Polit.ru is among
those who aren’t making too much of what has happened. He points out that no
one should forget that United Russia candidates won the overwhelming majority
of all district seats as well as the far more important gubernatorial competitions
(polit.ru/article/2017/09/11/edg/).
Not only did the
opposition win only a few seats at the lowest and least important legislative
bodies, but it won its fraction in Moscow in precisely the same places it has
been doing relatively well since the end of the 1980s, and “over the last 30
years,” Zhavoronkov continues, “not too much has changed.”
Several factors came together to
help the opposition this time around: the consolidation of the liberal
candidates under a single umbrella brand, tighter control over election
commissions, and also the decision of the Moscow mayor’s office to suppress
rather than boost turnout in this election.
As a result, the political
commentator continues, turnout was far smaller than in the Moscow city Duma
elections, and the opposition got its supporters to the polls at a time when
United Russia was not making much of an effort in that direction.
At the other end of reactions to
this vote is Kirill Martynov, the politics editor of Novaya gazeta. He argues that the vote represents “a small
municipal revolution” and establishes “a stable opposition at the local Moscow
level” which is thus in a position to “correct the trajectory of recent Russian
politics (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/09/11/73782-razreshite-predstavitsya-14).
The
opposition deputies will be able to make real demands on the authorities about
budgets and other key issues, and they will in some places be in a position to
vote out the administrator. Indeed,
Martynov says, their appearance sets the stage for “a political confrontation
of executive and legislative powers that people in Russia had begun to forget.”
The leaders of the opposition in
Moscow from the very beginning said, Martynov continues, that “the municipal
assemblies can be used as a public tribune” to express positions on a wide
variety of issues and not simply points of disagreement with the local leaders.
In this way, what has occurred is a reduction of the sense of unanimity the
Kremlin has promoted.
All this means that “the almost
mythical 14 percent” – that is the share of the electorate that doesn’t say it
supports Putin – now has a voice, the Novaya
gazeta commentator says, because at the municipal level there was no check
like the five percent barrier that kept them from being elected to the Russian
Duma.
Of course, he continues, this “municipal
revolution became possible because of the miscalculation of the authorities.”
They thought if they kept turnout down, they would win easily. Just the reverse
has happened. And that sets the stage both for the sorting out of who will lead
the opposition and of who may challenge for the Moscow mayor’s position next
year.
Zhavoronkov is probably too
pessimistic and Martynov too optimistic, but a third commentary suggests what
may be the most important fallout from this vote: the Russian government can no
longer count on elections to be an automatic instrument of legitimation.
Instead, they may become one that leads to “destabilization” (iarex.ru/articles/54495.html).
No comments:
Post a Comment