Russia held its parliamentary elections — the most boring in recent years. The most boring and at the same time amazingly unpredictable. Twenty years ago during the presidential race of 1996 the whole country for almost six months living alone elections. The voltage was breathtaking. There was an overwhelming feeling that something life-changing. By contrast, the Duma race of 2016 was, surprisingly casually, as if by inertia.
Dull and uninspired candidates, no struggle of ideas, the underlined indifference of the population. The feeling that the country is really going to make a very important choice, there are, in my opinion, only a few days before September 18. Appeared and disappeared.
photo: Natalia Gubernatorova
The Duma election of 2016 is a very important midterm exam and for the country and its political elite. On Monday morning in Russia actually starts the countdown to the presidential election in 2018.
As I wrote before, the result of that vote, with a probability of 90% is already sealed. We will have the opportunity to make any choice, if that choice is Putin. But in a political form of GDP will be met in 2018? Will it be perceived as a real national leader, who still has no alternative? Or the next presidential election the country is tired of the Putin — tired and want changes?
A partial answer to this question, in my opinion, will know on Monday. Yes, in the ballot, which citizens of the Russian Federation received on Sunday, the names “Putin” was not. Even the Chairman of “United Russia”, in contrast to the previous Duma elections, now appears to be not the GDP, and its “perpetual vicar” Dmitry Medvedev. But all understand: the Duma elections is primarily an informal referendum on confidence to the person who is taking in our country, all key decisions. Understand everything and more: official result of this referendum will be positive. “United Russia” will win.
But what will be the quality of this victory, the degree of its persuasiveness? Whether the ruling party to win a majority of votes on party lists? Or the dominance of United Russia in the lower house of Parliament will be ensured by single-mandate?
What will be the electoral turnout? What percentage of citizens will ignore the election and thus Express their distrust of the whole modern political system of the country and the man who is her father?
How clean are the elections? Over recent years, has become in late 2011, Putin’s right hand and king of the Russian public policy Vyacheslav Volodin repeatedly hammered into the consciousness: it’s over. Now the government refers to the purity of elections is not just serious, but’s super serious. Will the Kremlin to keep its promise? Whether those officials that accepted the rhetoric for the empty propaganda — and are sure to be, — a demonstration will be given hands? In other words, it will stand the test of national elections that new political design, which is carefully constructed in Russia for nearly the past five years?
Depending on the answers to these questions Vladimir Putin will have to decide on a new political configuration of the Russian government: the management of a political unit of the presidential administration, the Chairman of the State Duma, about the fate of the government.
The Chairman of the government Dmitry Medvedev in the Duma campaign of 2016 once again demonstrated its complete failure as public policy. No, speech making General content on the topic of “freedom is better than unfreedom” Dmitry is still good. But Medvedev competing for the votes of voters in the country, which is inhabited by nothing but hipsters. Medvedev was not lucky: he inherited a country where most citizens don’t even know what a Chav. And here to find a common language with these simple citizens Medvedev, I think, and failed. Failed not because he tried. Tried, even as it tried. Failed because some, like Putin, it is this — the ability to speak with people in his language. And some, such as Medvedev.
Stream from the cameras to the Central election Commission. Photo: AGN MOSCOW
Every time the light was born the next catch phrase like “no money, but you hold fast.” And each time it a heavy burden on the rating formally his party. After the December 1995 election the then party in power “Our house — Russia” showed a very modest result, Boris Yeltsin announced in January of the following year: “that for the PDR only voted 10% of voters blame Chubais. If not for his admitted mistakes in the conduct of economic policy, the number of voters would not be less than 20%.
With all my critical attitude to Anatoly Borisovich I’m not sure of the validity of this assessment. The main controversy of the ruling party in the Duma elections of 1995 was Yeltsin himself. But I am convinced that if not for Medvedev, the result of “United Russia” would have been higher.
So Putin is something to think about. If the results of the Duma elections it is fully satisfied, then he can continue to afford to keep the premiers as “close people” person. But if Putin decides that the support base for the government weakens, it will have an incentive to more serious update of the government than the substitution of unpopular Ministers. Especially now that for links to Medvedev in the Duma there is formal convenient excuse.
To make their conclusions on the results of the election have other political forces. At the last Duma elections the Communist party has positioned itself as a modern and civilized alternative to the government. For the 2016 elections Zyuganov’s party is carefully portrayed themselves as the club of admirers of Stalin — figure, which is associated with anything, but with the modern and the civilized development of Russia. I wonder what will bring this strategy the Communist party — more good or more harm?
Very peculiar revealed itself in these Duma elections and “Democrats” — taking the word in quotes because, for example, PARNAS party counted among the democratic forces, in my opinion, is possible now only with a very high degree of conditionality. Number two on the list of the party Vyacheslav Maltsev obviously worked on the same political field as unforgettable Vladimir Zhirinovsky. And number three is a “historian Andrei Zubov in an interview with radio “Freedom” delighted the audience that such nostalgic memories of his youth: “And I’m still in the “maker” of our Institute told my friends, they say, it’s a shame that Stalin lost the war to Hitler.”
I wonder, will evaluate whether democratically-minded voters such emotional outbursts? Personally, I do not appreciate. Of course, during the election campaign very clearly showed the party “Yabloko”. Yavlinsky’s party seemed to have come out of years of suspended animation and tried to gather its list of so many prominent figures of the democratic camp. But I think against the party is its stance on Crimea — the position is based on the thesis “is actually Crimea is not ours”. I don’t believe in modern Russia party, which is not averse to give the Crimea back to Ukraine, can become a truly influential political force. Let’s see how I’m right or wrong. The result is a boring election promises to be quite boring.