The Will, or the Way? By Dan Peleschuk
Critics Point to Ulterior Motives Behind the Proposed Return to Gubernatorial Elections
Russia Profile - January 17, 2012
President Dmitry Medvedev asked the State Duma on January 16 to reintroduce gubernatorial elections in what seemed to be the most significant concession yet to the wave of anti-Kremlin protests that have shaken the country recently. Yet it remains unclear whether the move is a genuine attempt at reform or an empty promise meant to placate the electorate ahead of the March presidential elections.
The wave of popular protests that washed over Russia in December – and which promise to continue on February 4 – have forced the Kremlin into a tight spot. Facing growing demands by protestors for government transparency and accountability, the authorities have scrambled in recent weeks to find ways to quell the discontent and dampen the anti-establishment fervor. First came Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s annual telethon broadcast on December 15, in which he first dangled the idea of reinstating gubernatorial elections – but with a “presidential filter.” Then, in his final State of the Nation Address a week later, Medvedev repeated the notion, but without any such qualifiers. Many observers dismissed the tandem’s promises as empty rhetoric.
But when Medvedev proposed a bill to bring back the election of governors, the rhetoric seemed, for a moment, to turn into action. The bill, an explanation of which is posted on the Kremlin Web site, stipulates that independent candidates can land on the ballot by collecting signatures or on the ticket of established political parties. But it also notes that all candidates must first pass through presidential consultation, raising speculation that the process would still be controlled by the Kremlin. Officials rushed to claim that the filter wouldn’t be mandatory. “Consultations are not obligatory for parties…even after consultations with the president, they may nominate their own parties,” Presidential Legal Aid Larisa Brycheva told RIA Novosti.
Nevertheless, critics took aim at the proposal. The Communist Party was among the first, noting that the bill’s bland language was key to understanding its hollowness. “Fine, parties can offer their own candidates – we’ll offer them,” said Ivan Melnikov, first deputy chairman of the party’s Central Committee, in a press statement. “At the same time, a mass of nuances dilute the ‘directness’ of these elections. If the president doesn’t like the party candidate, then the administrative resources will turn their horns against that candidate.”
Some analysts, however, noted that the move is a step in the right direction. According to Olga Mefodyeva, an expert at the Center for Political Technologies, the bill was a clear response to the mass protests on Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Avenue – but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a genuine effort at reform. Moreover, she said, the president’s hand in the process is an unavoidable factor. “Citizens will participate more in politics, and it’s important to say that from the point of view of civil development, and from the point of view of maintaining control over the authorities in the regions, this is a wonderful decision,” she said. “The role of the president, to a certain degree, will be to narrow down the field of populist candidates and assess their quality in terms of their fit within the consensus among the new Russian elite.”
Gubernatorial elections have long played a key role in critics’ complaints with the Putin regime. Elections were first canceled in 2004 in order to strengthen national security after the Beslan school siege, in which more than 300 women and children were killed by Chechen terrorists, Putin said at the time. But the move was only another part of a steady process of vertical consolidation – and of what many deemed a roll-back of democracy. Since then, the president has wielded the power to appoint and dismiss governors at his political whims, as well as to dissolve any regional Parliaments that failed to confirm the Kremlin’s candidates.
As far as the Kremlin response to the street protests, it remains unclear just how sincere these latest efforts are. On one hand, it points to that fact that the authorities have at least somewhat acknowledged the protesters’ demands. But on the other, the caveats reveal a significant, lingering refusal to engage in any meaningful political discussion.
Other experts believe the Kremlin has merely confirmed its inflexible and autocratic style by initiating such a policy from above. “Rather than having negotiations, talks or discussions with those who demand a return of the gubernatorial elections, the government shows mercy – almost royal mercy, saying ‘From the height of our power and authority, here is a law for you people,’” said Masha Lipman, an expert at Moscow’s Carnegie Center. “This is very different from the way this measure would be introduced if the government regarded its people as a force, not just a factor.”
Source: Russia Profile