Статьи на ту же тему

СМИ об исследованиях

| 19 октября, 2012

Experts Point to Election Campaign Degradation

'Nezavisimaya Gazeta' publication

Experts Point to Election Campaign Degradation

The spoiler effect and lack of competition determined the outcome of the October 14 gubernatorial and local parliamentary elections. The Center for Political Technologies (CPT) and the Higher School of Economics claim that A Just Russia is falling apart, the LDPR has become the ruling party’s loyal satellite, the registered and non-registered opposition failed to present a united front, and United Russia is facing the splitting of elites. That opinion is challenged by the Civil Society Development Fund.

CPT Vice President Rostislav Turovsky writes that it was only thanks to the other players’ loyalty and a lack of strong rivals that United Russia did so well.

Another reason is Russia’s pseudo-multiparty system. For example, the Communists of Russia and the Communist Party of Social Justice took between 1.5 percent and 3 percent of the Communist Party (KPRF) vote.

The CPT points to the disintegration of A Just Russia as a political force. It achieved good results only in Tver and Yaroslavl, receiving only 5 percent-7 percent of the votes in other regions. It was used as a spoiler to draw votes from the opposition in Tver and Kaliningrad.

The LDPR has finally become United Russia’s satellite. Participation in absolutely all gubernatorial elections and the withdrawal of its candidate in Bryansk are evidence of the party’s weakness.

The non-registered opposition lost the elections because it failed to unite with the registered opposition and due to the spoiler effect, Turovsky writes.

United Russia is facing a split of the elites, but is benefiting from the pseudo-multiparty effect. First deputy chief of the presidential staff Vyacheslav Volodin won in Penza and Saratov and his attitude to the KPRF has become noticeably harsher. Experts believe that the Communist Party will ultimately be dumped.

Experts from the Higher School of Economics (HSE) described the elections as “electoral authoritarianism.” They analyzed why the opposition lost the gubernatorial elections in five regions, even though the protest potential was quite strong in four of them.

They cite the clever use of special instruments to ensure the election of pro-government candidates and point out that the main element was a lack of competition. Election lists included spoiler candidates and were formed with the use of pressure, bribes and behind-the-scenes agreements to ensure the necessary outcome.

For example, inexperienced 34-35-year-old candidates were nominated in the Amur Region, strong candidates were denied registration in the Novgorod and Bryansk regions, and several spoilers were nominated in the Ryazan Region.

But the electorate was not interested in these games: the turnout fell by 13 percent compared to the previous elections. The opposition could either refuse to participate or nominate a common candidate, but it chose an intermediate variant and hence lost.

However, Civil Society Development Fund President Konstantin Kostin believes that the turnout was normal: 46 percent at gubernatorial elections and 43 percent at local parliamentary elections. He also praised the media activity of small parties and said that the result in Ryazan was ensured by the creation of a coalition with the governor’s main opponent.