Seven political parties shared with the President their
concepts of changing the political system in Russia.
Andrei Polunin’s interview with Galina Mikhaylovna
Mikhalyova, Doctor of Philosophy, Director of Center for Contemporary
Politics Research, and Executive Secretary of the Political
Committee of the YABLOKO party
On the threashold of Political Council meeting on political
reform sheduled on January 22, the Kremlin received seven
draft programmes for reform from all the parties. The reader
may recall that the Communists asked Dmitry Medvedev to hold
this State Council meeting during their meeting with him after
the parliamentary opposition's demarche and announcement that
October elections were fraudulent. The parties' proposals
will become the basis of a report to be presented at the State
Council meeting by Kaliningrad Oblast Governor Georgy Boos,
the head of the working group. Doctor of Philosophy Galina
Mikhalyova, Director of the Center for Contemporary Politics
Research and Executive Secretary of the YABLOKO Party's Political
Committee, talked about what the parties want from the President.
SVP: Galina Mikhaylovna, experts have already
remarked that all of the Russian political parties are displaying
extraordinary unanimity, judging by the reform strategies
they submitted. They like the ideas the President set forth
in his Address to the Federal Assembly. Why are they in agreement
for the first time?
Mikhalyova: If someone says Russia needs
modernisation and democratisation, why should not we support
him? If Medvedev says this, why should YABLOKO as an opposition
party say that he is wrong? Our proposals are connected precisely
with the steps targeted at strengthening of the principles
of democracy in our country, returning to our initial point,
when we had gubernatorial elections and Federation Council
elections, and changing the principles of the electoral and
the party systems. There was a serious crackdown in these
areas when Putin was President. This applies to freedom of
the press and guaranteed TV air time for all the parties.
In other words, democratic institutions must be strengthened,
and the institutional framework for this must be established.
SVP: Can you be a little more specific about
how the legislation pertaining to parties should be changed?
Mikhalyova: The requirement to minimum party
membership should be changed. In many countries, ten members
are enough for registration of a party. After that, it can
back its own election candidates and win elections. Here,
on the other hand, we have to muster 50,000 members, and we
have to adhere to a standard regional breakdown. This is quite
difficult and it can put obstacles to emergence of new parties.
Only think about this: we have only seven parties now, but
once we had more than 40 parties. Furthermore, not a single
new party has been registered for the recent years. This narrows
the political field and limits competition. It means the new
interests of various social groups are not represented.
In addition to this, collection of signatures should be abolished
for elections. The present parties already have enough members
to prove that they are strong. The requirement of collection
of signatures has been simply fostering corruption. Certainly
changes are also needed as far as activities of electoral
commissions are concerned. The applying of administrative
pressure on electoral commission should be stopped, and this
also requires restoration of public organizations’ right to
observe elections.
SVP: What proposals made by other parties
seem reasonable to you and what not?
Mikhalyova: We support everything within
the same trend as our proposals. The CPRF, for example, had
proposals about observing elections and access to television
and press. They coincided with our own views and are correct.
SVP: Nikolay Levichev, leader of the Just
Russia party, proposed transparent ballot boxes and video
control.
Mikhalyova: Those are secondary measures,
believe me. Transparent ballot boxes certainly are better
than non-transparent, but it is possible to stuff in 200 extra
ballots even into a transparent ballot box. It is even easier
to change the results of the voting in the territorial commission.
It is not ballot boxes that constitute a major problem.
SVP: He also said that the Imperiali quota
should be replaced with the Hare quota (Ed. the Imperiali
method of counting votes gives more seats to the party winning
the election; whereas the Hare quota envisages a minimum number
of votes required for each mandate.)...
Mikhalyova: The Imperiali system is discriminatory,
of course, because it works in favour of the election winner.
We have to return to the Hare system. It is more transparent
and unbiased.
SVP: As far as I understand it, YABLOKO
is proposing that a party should lose its mandates if ten
per cent of the candidates listed on the party ticket give
up those seats (Ed. The so-called “locomotives”). Is this
an attempt to eliminate the "locomotives"?
Mikhalyova: That is our principled point
of view. The "locomotives" clearly represent a way
to deceive voters and is therefore an outrageous practice.
SVP: The LDPR party worries about the voter
turnout. Thus, Igor Lebedev, head of the LDPR faction in the
State Duma, said, "The right to vote could become a civil
duty in our country. In some countries, it is treated as a
constitutional duty, so we would not invent anything new here."
Furthermore, the LDPR proposals suggest that voters should
be fined for neglecting their civil duty by RUR 3,000. What
do you think of that proposal?
Mikhalyova: A citizen of our country has
already been pressured from all the sides. Why does he choose
not to vote? Because he does not believe that his vote can
count and influence anything. Furthermore, judging by the
recent election, voters have the reasons to feel this way.
The important thing for people is to see that their votes
do have an impact [on the situation]. That is the goal of
all our proposals.
SVP: The CPRF believes that "public
messages and regulatory documents informing the Ministry of
Internal Affairs personnel of their functions during the campaign
and on the election day" are needed, and complains about
the actions of law enforcement bodies during public demonstrations.
Do you agree with the Communists?
Mikhalyova: They are right. Our police played
an active role in the recent election campaign in Moscow,
however, they never did this in the past. They hindered the
work of observers, for example, and carried some of them,
along with the chairs they were sitting in, out of the voting
stations. The law enforcement agencies are supposed to maintain
law and order during elections, of course, but they certainly
are not supposed to become involved in the election campaign.
When we were collecting signatures for the recent elections,
for example, our volunteers were constantly arrested and taken
to the police. The police were preventing us from conducting
our election campaign.
SVP: But the police are not the bad guys,
after all. They were ordered to do this. Furthermore, it is
difficult to describe the elections in the period since Yeltsin
became President as elections. Do you agree?
Mikhalyova: That is why we do not accept
the results of the Moscow election and we believe it was illegitimate.
As for the police, you are not completely right. Because of
the structure of our law enforcement system, a message from
the top does not always reach the lower level. In the case
of the Moscow election, how did we get our volunteers collecting
signatures out of trouble? We telephoned the municipal duty
officer, he called his boss, and they were released. This
is an insensitive administrative machine.
SVP: Will the proposals that were handed
to President Medvedev make a difference? Can they change the
current rules of the game?
Mikhalyova: I do not think they will change
them, but a drop of water can wear away a stone if it is persistent.
Any change in the present situation, any movement in the direction
of liberalization, will help. If our political elite show
any inclination, even if only for show, to change the situation
in any way, this will hinder further movement towards authoritarianism.
This alone will be a good thing. I think one-tenth of the
suggestions will be adopted, and everything will turn out
the way it is now: a minimum requirement of 45,000 party members
instead of 50,000, and one deputy in the State Duma for any
party obtaining five percent in the election... These are
cosmetic changes and I do not see any political will for a
fundamental change. For this reason, if changes do occur,
some changes in the elite will probably begin. Then the members
of today's elite will lose their positions and their opportunities
to acquire property. But even a minor change in the present
situation, even a cosmetic change, I repeat, will be a good
thing.
See also:
the
original
Moscow City
Duma Elections, 2009
Chairs
of local electoral commissions speak in favour of cancellation
of the results of the elections in the Veshnyaki area, Moscow.
Press Release, December 2, 2009
A
trial on the fraud at the electoral districts where over 1,000
votes were stuffed for the United Russia party began. Press
Release, November 26, 2009
On
non-recognition of the results of the elections of October
11, 2009, and the need to investigate cases of franchise violations.
Statement of the Bureau of the Russian United Democratic Party
YABLOKO.
October 19, 2009
Election
fraud at the Moscow City Duma elections. From the Live Journal
of Igor Yakovlev, Press Secretary of the YABLOKO party
Violations at the
Moscow City Duma elections. Press Release. October 12, 2009
| 