Moscow Mayoral Elections: Alexei Navalny
Elections in Russia are usually described as ‘lacking in transparency’, or more directly, ‘corrupt’. The ridgid stage management of all electoral processes has led to the popular term ‘managed democracy’. It would seem however that some strong signs of change are appearing.
The recent Moscow Mayoral elections were played out and rather than the previously obligatory landslide victory with almost 100% turnout, some surprising results emerged.
Moscow is Europe’s largest city and an economic powerhouse. Unsurprisingly, the role of Mayor of Moscow is one of immense power and control. From 1992 to 2010 the seat was held by the intimidating and controlling Yuri Luzhkov, who presided over, amongst other things, a massive construction boom. Strangely, his wife Baturina is Russia’s only female billionaire, such is her business acumen as owner of Interco, the construction firm responsible for almost all new build residential schemes in the city. Allegations of corruption and personal gain saw him eventually fired in 2010 by then President, Dimitri Medvedev. Seemingly, his profile became a little too toxic for even the Putin regime: Toxic indeed. His mark on Moscow is the vast and imposing collection of glass towers in the international trade centre. His replacement was the altogether lower profile, and Putin acolyte, Sergey Sobyanin. His reign over the city saw the clean up of Gorky Park, city bicycles and the slow down of the aggressive demolition and rebuild scheme of his predecessor.
Elections throughout Russia since independence regularly feature some sort of nominal, token opposition and the results are usually a foregone conclusion. Leading opposition figures of the early 2000s have been marginalised, worn away and destroyed. Vladimir Bukovsky, Sergei Kovalev, Alexander Podrabinek, Valeria Novodvorskaya, Gary Kasparov et all found varying fates of persecution and exhile were their rewards for daring to try to speak out. Perhaps though, after these Mayoral Elections we might have begun to see a change. A more legitimate but still ‘managed opposition’ seems to be emerging. It was the first time since 2000 a genuine opposition leader was permitted to stand. There has perhaps been a sea change from within the regime in recognising that there needs to be a more concerted effort, at least, at providing a fair contest.
Alexei Navalny seems to have fought his was to the top of the opposition pile. He is hardly a shining light of unified dissenters; in fact, he does his best to divide the opposition. Russia is not good at Political Parties in the Western sense. No doubt this is a consequence of the seven long decades under communism where politics was as much about the cult of the personality as it is now. Indeed since 2000 the regime has had at least four vehicles, culminating in the current platform United Russia. Indeed the increasingly faltering United Russia may find itself the scapegoat for the recent election results.
Conspiracy theorists who like to believe that Putin is an all-seeing-all-controlling-despot are purporting the theory that he has masterminded the Navalny phenomenon. It is an excuse to cleanse his own power vehicle and the now redundant United Russia party can be swept away and replaced with something less tainted. Nothing is too far fetched for modern Russia sometimes for certain sectors in the western media.
Navalny is a Moscow born Lawyer, political campaigner and financial activist. He coined the phrased ‘party of crooks and thieves’ for United Russia in 2011 and it stuck. He has spent years trying to shine light on corruption and embezzlement scandals, notably Igor Shulov, former Deputy Prime minister’s complex financial arrangements. Such activities unsurprisingly landed him in jail accused of fraud and embezzlement himself. He is currently awaiting yet another trial.
He is the current opposition figurehead, but he is hardly the ideal candidate. Charismatic? Yes. Unblemished record? No. In 2011 he appeared to liken the people of the Caucasus to cockroaches and his views on Russian nationalism would be something the EDL would baulk at. However, not being liberal enough is the least of the Russian oppositions’ worries. There are also allegations of Montenegrin based tax fraud and money laundering. Realistically his long term future is probably not a presidential one.
What he has done with his election success is show the gaps in the ‘managed democracy’ of the regime. His trump card was the use of modern social media tools to reach the younger masses. These are the people to most likely push for change if change is ever possible. Navalny’s blog is accessible to most people in English and Russian, his twitter account is heavily followed and he was able to mobilise rallies in central Moscow on a scale never seen before. His media use means his profile in the Russian ex-pat community, particularly in London, is now sky high. He has made himself famous internationally.
He got 27% of the vote which is unheard of, Sobyanin won with the requisite 51% required to avoid a second round. Navalny then launched an appeal against the results which was dismissed last week. The Moscow court found no irregular voting practises.
What was really surprising was the low turn out at only 30%. There were many possible explanations for this. Those in the conspiracy Putin-controls-all-of-Russia-camp point to the fact that the elections were announced only in spring, meaning there was little time to do any meaningful campaigning. The election itself was scheduled for mid-September, a time of year when most Russians are still out of the city in their Summer Dachas. The Sunday polling day chosen again supports this claim. The theorist believe that Putin now feels that, as there has to be an opposition, it is better to restrict it in rather subtler ways that in the past where general bans and incarceration were commonplace. This stance in itself is telling. Those of less suspicious bent would point to voter apathy and disgruntlement at the democratic process. After years of single party, indeed single man domination, it is more likely that the low turnout was a result of repeated failure to see any change. Those who vote for opposition in Russian regardless of what form it takes may be forgiven for loosing heart in the democratic process. There is also a level of economic stress on the Russian economy which has resulted in abstentions. The dissatisfaction with the regime at the lack of salaries and job opportunities has been steadily growing since 2008 and not turning out to vote could be a measure of protest, as opposed to voting for a show front of an opposition.
Moscow was not the only city holding elections and some surprising results where to be found in the regions. For example in Russia’s forth largest city Yekaterinburg, Evgeny Roizman won a victory with his City Without Drugs mandate. Roizman is something of a high profile maverick, poet and artist. He does have strong local ties to the Yekaterinburg region which shows that Russia can perhaps mobilise a grass roots geopolitical structure where candidates run in their local areas on local mandates.
All of this does demonstrate that Russia lacks any form of politically unified opposition. One single headline maker, albeit a twitter using, charismatic one, does not constitute a progressive step. The signs of change are there, as if the gates might be opening just a chink. Navalny may well go to jail, but the continued public embarrassment to United Russia that is Mikhail Khokorkovsky means that Navalny is unlikely to be put away for long. The last thing the regime needs is another high profile martyr.
Real change will only come about when the control of the countries vast economic resources is finally wrested away from the state and passed down to a fully functional private sector. What is more likely is that this represents a weakening of Vladimir Putin’s control. Voter apathy at the futility of the democratic processes and economic situation has grown and his normally assured judgement has failed. In an effort to alter perception and allow Navalny to run has resulted in the genie being released from the bottle. Whether the opposition could ever mobilise and organise itself to take advantage of the situation remains highly unlikely. Change is happening, but it will take years or the removal of Putin, what ever comes first.
The recent Moscow Mayoral elections were played out and rather than the previously obligatory landslide victory with almost 100% turnout, some surprising results emerged.
Moscow is Europe’s largest city and an economic powerhouse. Unsurprisingly, the role of Mayor of Moscow is one of immense power and control. From 1992 to 2010 the seat was held by the intimidating and controlling Yuri Luzhkov, who presided over, amongst other things, a massive construction boom. Strangely, his wife Baturina is Russia’s only female billionaire, such is her business acumen as owner of Interco, the construction firm responsible for almost all new build residential schemes in the city. Allegations of corruption and personal gain saw him eventually fired in 2010 by then President, Dimitri Medvedev. Seemingly, his profile became a little too toxic for even the Putin regime: Toxic indeed. His mark on Moscow is the vast and imposing collection of glass towers in the international trade centre. His replacement was the altogether lower profile, and Putin acolyte, Sergey Sobyanin. His reign over the city saw the clean up of Gorky Park, city bicycles and the slow down of the aggressive demolition and rebuild scheme of his predecessor.
Elections throughout Russia since independence regularly feature some sort of nominal, token opposition and the results are usually a foregone conclusion. Leading opposition figures of the early 2000s have been marginalised, worn away and destroyed. Vladimir Bukovsky, Sergei Kovalev, Alexander Podrabinek, Valeria Novodvorskaya, Gary Kasparov et all found varying fates of persecution and exhile were their rewards for daring to try to speak out. Perhaps though, after these Mayoral Elections we might have begun to see a change. A more legitimate but still ‘managed opposition’ seems to be emerging. It was the first time since 2000 a genuine opposition leader was permitted to stand. There has perhaps been a sea change from within the regime in recognising that there needs to be a more concerted effort, at least, at providing a fair contest.
Alexei Navalny seems to have fought his was to the top of the opposition pile. He is hardly a shining light of unified dissenters; in fact, he does his best to divide the opposition. Russia is not good at Political Parties in the Western sense. No doubt this is a consequence of the seven long decades under communism where politics was as much about the cult of the personality as it is now. Indeed since 2000 the regime has had at least four vehicles, culminating in the current platform United Russia. Indeed the increasingly faltering United Russia may find itself the scapegoat for the recent election results.
Conspiracy theorists who like to believe that Putin is an all-seeing-all-controlling-despot are purporting the theory that he has masterminded the Navalny phenomenon. It is an excuse to cleanse his own power vehicle and the now redundant United Russia party can be swept away and replaced with something less tainted. Nothing is too far fetched for modern Russia sometimes for certain sectors in the western media.
Navalny is a Moscow born Lawyer, political campaigner and financial activist. He coined the phrased ‘party of crooks and thieves’ for United Russia in 2011 and it stuck. He has spent years trying to shine light on corruption and embezzlement scandals, notably Igor Shulov, former Deputy Prime minister’s complex financial arrangements. Such activities unsurprisingly landed him in jail accused of fraud and embezzlement himself. He is currently awaiting yet another trial.
He is the current opposition figurehead, but he is hardly the ideal candidate. Charismatic? Yes. Unblemished record? No. In 2011 he appeared to liken the people of the Caucasus to cockroaches and his views on Russian nationalism would be something the EDL would baulk at. However, not being liberal enough is the least of the Russian oppositions’ worries. There are also allegations of Montenegrin based tax fraud and money laundering. Realistically his long term future is probably not a presidential one.
What he has done with his election success is show the gaps in the ‘managed democracy’ of the regime. His trump card was the use of modern social media tools to reach the younger masses. These are the people to most likely push for change if change is ever possible. Navalny’s blog is accessible to most people in English and Russian, his twitter account is heavily followed and he was able to mobilise rallies in central Moscow on a scale never seen before. His media use means his profile in the Russian ex-pat community, particularly in London, is now sky high. He has made himself famous internationally.
He got 27% of the vote which is unheard of, Sobyanin won with the requisite 51% required to avoid a second round. Navalny then launched an appeal against the results which was dismissed last week. The Moscow court found no irregular voting practises.
What was really surprising was the low turn out at only 30%. There were many possible explanations for this. Those in the conspiracy Putin-controls-all-of-Russia-camp point to the fact that the elections were announced only in spring, meaning there was little time to do any meaningful campaigning. The election itself was scheduled for mid-September, a time of year when most Russians are still out of the city in their Summer Dachas. The Sunday polling day chosen again supports this claim. The theorist believe that Putin now feels that, as there has to be an opposition, it is better to restrict it in rather subtler ways that in the past where general bans and incarceration were commonplace. This stance in itself is telling. Those of less suspicious bent would point to voter apathy and disgruntlement at the democratic process. After years of single party, indeed single man domination, it is more likely that the low turnout was a result of repeated failure to see any change. Those who vote for opposition in Russian regardless of what form it takes may be forgiven for loosing heart in the democratic process. There is also a level of economic stress on the Russian economy which has resulted in abstentions. The dissatisfaction with the regime at the lack of salaries and job opportunities has been steadily growing since 2008 and not turning out to vote could be a measure of protest, as opposed to voting for a show front of an opposition.
Moscow was not the only city holding elections and some surprising results where to be found in the regions. For example in Russia’s forth largest city Yekaterinburg, Evgeny Roizman won a victory with his City Without Drugs mandate. Roizman is something of a high profile maverick, poet and artist. He does have strong local ties to the Yekaterinburg region which shows that Russia can perhaps mobilise a grass roots geopolitical structure where candidates run in their local areas on local mandates.
All of this does demonstrate that Russia lacks any form of politically unified opposition. One single headline maker, albeit a twitter using, charismatic one, does not constitute a progressive step. The signs of change are there, as if the gates might be opening just a chink. Navalny may well go to jail, but the continued public embarrassment to United Russia that is Mikhail Khokorkovsky means that Navalny is unlikely to be put away for long. The last thing the regime needs is another high profile martyr.
Real change will only come about when the control of the countries vast economic resources is finally wrested away from the state and passed down to a fully functional private sector. What is more likely is that this represents a weakening of Vladimir Putin’s control. Voter apathy at the futility of the democratic processes and economic situation has grown and his normally assured judgement has failed. In an effort to alter perception and allow Navalny to run has resulted in the genie being released from the bottle. Whether the opposition could ever mobilise and organise itself to take advantage of the situation remains highly unlikely. Change is happening, but it will take years or the removal of Putin, what ever comes first.
