| President Vladimir Putin inherited the problem of Vladivostok
and its history of scandal-plagued elections from his predecessor. It was
in this most far-flung of Russia's major cities that the Kremlin first
tried, unsuccessfully, to turn a regional head of the Federal Security
Service into a loyal satrap -- a scheme subsequently repeated across the
country. And it was in the Primorye region that the Kremlin, having failed
to bring a former regional boss into line, was forced to offer him a top
post in Moscow.
The current mayoral election in Vladivostok, which will be decided in
a runoff later this month, is just the latest skirmish in an ongoing battle
for power in the region. Three candidates contested the first round on
July 4: incumbent Yury Kopylov, a representative of the old regime who
placed third and will not take part in the runoff; Vladimir Nikolayev,
a businessman and deputy in the Primorye legislative assembly; and State
Duma Deputy Viktor Cherepkov, a former Navy captain who served as mayor
from 1993 to 1998.
The mayoral race can be seen as a preview of the gubernatorial election
to be held next year. On one level, it is a confrontation between political
parties. Nikolayev, a convicted criminal, is a top official in the regional
branch of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. Cherepkov, the other finalist,
is backed by a little-known party called Freedom and Rule of the People.
In his unsuccessful re-election bid, Kopylov enjoyed the support of Vladimir
Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party.
But in fact, this is a feud between two powerful clans headed by current
Primorye Governor Sergei Darkin and former Governor Yevgeny Nazdratenko.
Cherepkov, a candidate who does not serve the purposes of the Kremlin
or the warring clans, has inserted himself into the middle of this confrontation
by rallying the protest vote. The residents of Vladivostok who cast their
ballots for Cherepkov in the first round were more likely expressing their
displeasure with the status quo than their desire to see him become mayor.
As usual, the mayoral election has been marred by the widespread use
of what is known as "administrative resources," or the power
of the state. One particularly flagrant example of this practice was the
removal of the chairman of the city's electoral commission, who supported
the incumbent, at the height of the campaign. There has also been no shortage
of dirty tricks, such as the fielding of candidates with first and last
names identical to those of Cherepkov and Kopylov, apparently in an attempt
to confuse the voters. Job titles have been doubled, too. Yury Kopylov,
head of the Vladivostok city administration, faced a second Yury Kopylov,
head of the "City of Vladivostok" foundation, which had been
hastily founded somewhere in Siberia.
The latest development in the election was an assassination attempt
against Cherepkov, who is in stable condition after a grenade attack on
his campaign headquarters. In a sense, history is repeating itself. Cherepkov
was removed from the ballot before the second round of the 2001 gubernatorial
election for illegal campaigning, clearing the way for the Kremlin's candidate.
Numerous accusations have been made against both of the finalists in this
year's election, but to no effect. Has someone resorted to more drastic
measures? If Cherepkov drops out of the race for any reason, Kopylov would
be the chief beneficiary, either by filling Cherepkov's slot on the ballot
or, if the election were called off, by getting a second chance.
Vladivostok makes clear that Moscow may have enough sway in the region
to destroy, but far from enough power to create. It also reveals that
even extremely active voter participation does not translate into real
democracy without effective political institutions. The big winner in
all this is an alliance of corrupt local leaders and criminalized business
interests. As Central Elections Commission chief Alexander Veshnyakov
has said, Primorye is a "zone of electoral anomalies." But this
should not obscure the threat to democracy posed by the consolidation
of this anomaly and its spread to other regions where organized, criminalized
business has taken power. In fact, the only anomaly in Primorye may be
the publicity and the scandal that accompanies the political process,
not its essence.
Nikolai Petrov, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center,
contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
See also:
the original at
www.themoscowtimes.com
Regional Elections
2004
|
