Boris Vishnevsky’s blog post, 2.07.2020

The main result of the caricatured “nationwide vote” is directly opposite to what the Kremlin intended.

The indicators of the allegedly unanimous support of the “amendments to the Constitution” that are joyfully broadcasted by the Central electoral Commission do not matter. The fact that it would be announced that there would be, roughly, 75 per cent “for” and 25 per cent “against”, was clear back in March. Without any “voting”.

However, they wanted to get a “holiday of nullification”, a triumphal plebiscite, demonstration of popular support for Putin — but they got an obvious disgrace.

No matter how hard the Central Electoral Commission tries with all its electoral vertical, no matter how state propagandists jump out of their skin, no matter how entourage senators and deputies dance with joy, – the helpfully drawn figures enter into such a glaring discrepancy with the reality that they become the most important factor in the country’s further development.

There is absolutely no confidence in these numbers.

No wonder the Levada Centre poll (25 per cent support for Putin’s amendments versus 28 per cent support for Yabloko’s amendments) and polls conducted on July 1 at polling stations show that Putin’s proposals were losing.

This is clear to many people without any sociology – just according to the mood of friends and acquaintances.

It is obvious that Putin’s amendments were mostly voted on coercion (and even, I think, not everyone who was urged to vote early supported the amendments – their ballots were simply replaced and then also a considerable portion of [“correctly ticked ballots”] was stuffed).

It is obvious that with semi-empty lists of voters in the polling stations – which is fixed not only by members of the electoral commissions from the opposition, but also by those who came to vote – they officially draw the turnout at 70 per cent.

It is obvious that Putin no longer has the majority support – what has been defending him for many years and gave him reason to do whatever he wanted.

The presidential, the State Duma, and the gubernatorial elections were dishonest and unfair – but the rigging was nevertheless “quantitative”. Only in separate cases it qualitatively affected the result.

Now the situation is fundamentally different: there is a qualitative discrepancy between what there actually is and what is offered to believe in.

True, it is unlikely that what has happened will immediately provoke mass protests.

Just because so many people today keep the constitutional changes on the periphery of their personal attention. They have other concerns: three months without work and money, collapsed life plans, the uncertainty of the future…

At the same time, on the one hand, they do not believe that pensions will begin to grow by changing the Constitution or affordable medicine will appear. On the other hand, they are certain that the Constitution will not affect their lives in any way: does it matter what was written there before – and was not implemented nevertheless?

As for Putin, they are certain that he will do everything in order not to leave the post even without changing the Constitution and the “nullification” of his presidential terms. And if he leaves, it will happen not at all because it will be prescribed for him by the Constitution …

Nevertheless, the farcical nature of what has happened – and, first of all, of the “reset” [of the presidential terms] – is so great that it leads to a situation called the loss of legitimacy.

When the government formally exists and makes decisions, but its right to govern ceases to be recognised. When they stop respecting it. And stop believing it.

Then tectonic shifts begin – no matter what ratings or results of plebiscites were recorded before.

Recollect the situation with the 1991 referendum on the preservation of the USSR — and we should note here that it was completely lawful (in contrast to the current action). Nine months later, it was forgotten and cast away – and where did all those 78% who voted in favour disappear? Who of them came out to defend their will? No one. How 18 million members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union vanished in the air after the ban of the Communist Party…

The same is with the current amendments to the Constitution: as soon as real changes begin, the first independent court or the first freely elected parliament will cancel them with one click.

Yes, apparently, the Kremlin believes that they will do well without trust: on the principle of “let them not believe, if only they obey”.

But practice shows that when people do not believe the government, –  in the end, people cease obeying it.

And the government has to leave.

My Telegram channel 

Source

BORIS VISHNEVSKY

is Deputy Chairman of the Yabloko party, member of Yabloko’s Federal Political Committee and head of the Yabloko faction in the St.Petersburg Legislative Assembly