Статьи на ту же тему

СМИ о мероприятиях

| 13 сентября, 2013

Konstantin Kostin on the Opposition, on Postponing the Elections and on what influences the Electorate

In an interview with IARegnum Konstantin Kostin, the head of the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society (FDoCS) discussed the surprises of the last elections and proposals for the postponement of the date for a single day of voting in the Regions.

REGNUM: Mr Kostin, there were three major surprises in the last elections on September 8^th: Navalni in Moscow, Roizman in Yekaterinburg and Shirshina in Petrozavodsk. Can you comment on them?

KOSTIN: The most surprising result of the three you mention, was the victory of Galina Shirshina in Petrozavodsk. The situation there of course revolved around the long time, protracted conflict (which has lasted over ten years) between the city and republican elites which escalated before the elections. The Mayor, Levin, represented the regional authorities and Emilia Slabunova, the Yabloka (Apple) candidate who represented the city. Slabunova was removed and replaced by Shirshina. Prior to that Shirshina had been the reserve candidate and was so little known that people couldn’t even pronounce her name. But she was supported by the media, politicians and other resources and suddenly - literally a few weeks before the elections - she surged into the lead and I think that when the votes were totted up Shirshina herself was in a state of shock that she had won.

As for Roizman, well we were already talking about his winning the elections in the latter half of August. It was clear that he was putting up a serious fight and had a chance of actually winning the elections. For some reason people now consider that Roizman is part of the free opposition. This, to put it mildly, is an exaggeration. He was never a part of the white ribbon brigade – he is part of Mikhail Prokhorov’s ‘Civic Platform.’

When it comes to the elections for Mayor of Moscow there were in fact two surprises: a low turnout and third place going to a candidate from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The Communist Party has lost its status as the main opposition force in Moscow so there is no sensation in the fact that over 600,000 people voted for Navalny. And the 27% of the vote which Alexei Navalny received was due to the low turnout among the loyal electorate and high mobilization of his own supporters. If there had been a turnout of say, 50% he would have received no more than 18% of the vote. In the last decade in Moscow, the percentage of those who are not happy with the present course of politics and want changes, stays stable at around 10-15%. Remember how Sergei Kirienko took part in the Moscow Mayoral elections when he represented the SPS Party (‘The Union of Right Power’)? And the banker Alexander Lebedev? They both stood again Yuri Luzhkov. Their results are comparable with that of Navalny.

REGNUM: But is it not fair to say that the very participation of opposition politicians was a bit of a sensation in Moscow? And what about Navalny’s unique electoral campaign?

KOSTIN: This was no sensation but simply a consequence of the political reforms which the government of this country are carrying out. As for Navalny’s campaign being unique – it follows the pattern of political campaigns which have been carried out for around two thousand years – actively going out to meet the electorate. Read Plutarch. Or, if it’s any easier you may recall how, in 1999, Alexander Korzhakov wrote in his memoirs of Yeltsin, how he (Korzhakov) took part in the elections to the State Duma. Yelstin didn’t like this and so Korzhakov had to start from a single mandate district in the Tulsk Oblast. He was not given the opportunity to meet with voters; he was refused premises in which to conduct his campaign, and so he held his meetings in street courtyards or at bus stops. He won those elections. Meeting people and personal contact in a public context is one of the main strongholds of influencing the electorate.

REGNUM: So if that is true then it is not surprising that Alexei Navalny was so successful. But at next year’s elections for seats in the Moscow State Duma he could unite Party opposition and secure an even greater victory?

KOSTIN: But in order to do that he would have to come to some agreement. But agreement with whom? Would RPR-Parnas, the Party that nominated him for these elections want to negotiate with him? Or the Party which has such celebrated politicians as Nemtsov, Kasyanov and Ryzhkov? It is not true that ‘Civil Platform’, which has its own leader, would want an alliance with Navalny. So the question remains of exactly who the opposition can consolidate with – and whether they can in fact consolidate with anyone at all? Or will they approach the elections in different directions and dilute the protest and liberal voters into negligible percentages?

REGNUM: So who do you predict will win?

KOSTIN: In the Moscow State Duma elections ‘United Russia’ will win. ‘Fair Russia’, ‘Apple’, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation will also give a good showing. Incidentally, it is not only party affiliation which matters but how one conducts one’s campaign. Navalny is far removed from the regional and local context but during the mayoral elections he put himself forward not so much as a future Mayor but as someone who aimed higher. His slogan: ‘Change Russia. Start with Moscow’ is confirmation of this. But when he was asked concrete questions – not about corruption and theft on the part of government officials, but about courtyards, living blocks and the situation on the roads – he simply said that should he win he would have specialists who were responsible for dealing with these problems. But in elections to the City Duma one cannot get away with such generalised answers. Elections to Executive Authorities are closely linked to domestic issues and concrete problems.

REGNUM: Can you give us an example of a regionally orientated campaign within an Executive Authority?

KOSTIN: Yes. ‘United Russia’ in the Yaroslav Region. The Party won 42% of the vote at the elections in the Duma! The Yaroslav Region was shaken by political scandals (remember the story of the Mayor, Urlashovym) and was the focus for opposition politicians including Boris Nemtsov from RPR-Parnas, but it still voted for ‘United Russia’. And the reason for that was primarily the fact that the campaign was intelligently run with good, well chosen strategies and tactics which were based on the local agenda. People are interested in how their own lives will change for the better and ‘United Russia’ candidates in Yaroslavl responded to those questions.

REGNUM: And the fact that many of the winning candidates were victorious because the turnout was so low doesn’t discredit the very idea of elections?

KOSTIN: There is always a lower turnout for regional elections than for national elections. This is common to all democracies. The Mayor of Philadelphia – the fifth largest city in the United States – won the election on a mere 19% turnout. In our country, the Mayor of Vladivostok, Pushkarev, won despite a remarkable lack of interest among voters and in Voronezh, Alexander Gusev won with a turnout of only 20%. However, on the subject of Voronezh, it was Galina Kudryavtseva from the ‘Green Alliance’ who was initially in a good position with high ratings, but in the last few weeks she slowed her campaign, while Gusev, on the contrary built up momentum. Governor Alexei Gordeev played a big role in this victory - he solved a difficult dilemma by political methods. In the last two weeks he took Gusev under his wing and they really ‘hit the ground running’, holding public meetings together, listening to people and talking to them. Gusev’s rating rose from 15% to 44% while Kudryavtseva’s rating droppoed.. It is probable that if Galina Kudryatseva had been a bit more active the result would have been very different.

REGUM: There were low turnouts in this election in almost all the regions except Chechnya. In your opinion is it not true that it was the date of the one day voting that played a role in the low turnout? At the beginning of September many people are still on holiday and others have not left their garden plots in the country…

KOSTIN: Firstly, let me repeat that regional elections around the world are not the same as national elections. Secondly discussions are now underway about changing the date of elections due to the low turnout. Heated arguments about when is the best time to hold elections have been going on for a long time. There were many complaints about holding them in October when half the country is lying under a blanket of snow and people don’t want to go out and vote! And March is a time when people become more depressed and so also don’t feel like going out and voting. Whatever month you suggest there will always be people who are unhappy with it.

I believe that Professor Leonid Polyakov of the Higher School of Economics makes a good point when he says that elections should be moved from the weekend to a weekday. One could extend the working hours of polling stations so that everyone would have the opportunity to cast their vote. This might have a positive impact on turnout. At the weekend, especially in good weather, people are trying to get out of town and into the country. But on a week day you have to go to work anyway so you might as well drop by the polling station.

But I believe that hurrying to immediately change the date is not a good idea. The political system requires a careful and delicate approach to the voting day. It depends to a great extent on fitting in with the daily life and convenience of the voters themselves. Before making a decision on changing the voting day we need to look at past experience and analyse it, taking into account climatic conditions, unique regional factors and a mass of other dynamics. Every little detail is important.

REGNUM: On the subject of other regional campaigns, the most controversial situations arose at the beginning of the year in the Trans-Baikal and Vladimir regions. Here we had two ‘Viking Guards’ – Konstantin Il’kovsky and Svetlana Orlova who were unfamiliar with the regions. Did you think that there victory was convincing?

Il’kovsky was able to built a coalition and led a brilliant campaign. As a result the Communist Nikolai Merzlikin, who, according to our preliminary forecasts was his main rival, came only third. But Il’kovsky got a very good result and now has great potential to become not only the ‘economic’ leader of the region but the political one too.

Svetlana Orlova showed herself to be a brilliant public speaker during the campaign trail. She managed, in a good sense, to turn around everyone’s view of the elections – she met with people, talked to them and spent hours speaking at massive public meetings. All these activities had a real influence on people. She led her campaign on a very emotional level. The Communists had their noses put out. They believed that only they knew how to conduct good campaigns, but Orlova managed to win a landslide victory in a region where the Governor had been from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for the past 16 years.

REGNUM: But in the other regions what was it that led to the victory of incumbent candidates? Was it because they had access to administrative resources?

KOSTIN: Not at all. I want to point out here that this election has been one of the most transparent and honest in our history. And this is an important result of political reforms. Of all the candidates to the elections (including those running for Governor, Mayor and Deputies) only 2% were distanced. These were competitive, open elections. The opposition was very active. Let me remind you that we only have one Party in power ‘United Russia’. All the others are opposition Parties. They play a vital part in the political system of our country, and it is important that each one of them should have their supporters who identify with their concrete political goals.

REGNUM: Next year there will be 11 elections to vote in Regional heads. Will they take place within the usual inert scenario?

KOSTIN: Political reform and the promotion of effective competition require new electoral strategies. It will be important to become immersed in regional issues, to be open and to work on a modern and effective communication model. It is clear that in the next political season we will see a lot more campaigns being held in a highly competitive atmosphere.