How did the first televised debate of presidential candidates go?

Televised debates of presidential candidates started on Monday on the Rossiya 1 TV channel. As part of the first round, Vladislav Davankov (“New People”) and Nikolai Kharitonov (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) presented their programs in person, and his trusted representative Nikita Berezin spoke on behalf of the LDPR candidate Leonid Slutsky. True, as Kommersant was convinced, they did not have a full-fledged discussion, and according to the expert, they were not supposed to.

The first federal television debate in this campaign began at 15:00 local time and lasted an hour with breaks to show campaign videos (President Vladimir Putin does not take part in the debate, so his video was not aired). The organizers dedicated the opening broadcast to education: politicians were asked to answer three questions within a four-minute time limit, and then give a two-minute summary. To begin with, the presenter asked the participants to evaluate the progress of the national project “Education”.

The candidate from “New People” considered it necessary to introduce himself in detail to the television audience and said that education is a “personal topic” for him: “My grandfather taught for more than 40 years, another grandfather is an academician chemist, nominated for the Nobel Prize, my grandmother has 30 years of teaching experience . And I was personally involved in the national project “Education”: I led two federal projects – “Social elevators for everyone” and “Teacher of the future.” Next, Vladislav Davankov spoke about the low salaries of teachers and the financing of the system as a whole. “The national project “Education” is a question about money, first of all,” the candidate emphasized. “Only 4% of the budget is allocated for education, this is critically low.” At the same time, he urged viewers to familiarize themselves with his program, which provides for an increase in spending on education to 10% of the budget, and boasted that he “knows where to get the money” for “every point” of the election document.

The speech of the LDPR representative turned out to be more impersonal: at first, Nikita Berezin, who replaced the candidate, placed exclusively party accents. “We in the LDPR see how what was written in national projects differs from the history that we see today,” he complained. But then he added specifics, saying that the Liberal Democrats are talking “not only about low salaries,” but also about the difference in income between rural and urban teachers, about the need to abolish the Unified State Exam and de-bureaucratize the work of teachers.

“There’s no need to wander around, we need to remember our history!” – Communist Nikolai Kharitonov predictably called after waiting his turn. Paying tribute to the Soviet experience, he spoke in detail about the socialist-oriented initiatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the role of all eminent party members in their development. “We can correct the budget with amendments and at least increase public education,” Mr. Kharitonov explained to his opponents and television viewers. And he unexpectedly made an attack on his competitors: “I respect the representatives of the candidates, the candidate himself, but 37 billion in the budget could have been corrected by voting. Why did New People and the Liberal Democratic Party vote for this budget?..”

The rivals gave an answer to the communist already in the second round, dedicated to the Bologna system. “The Communist Party faction votes against the budget every year, then issues amendments, they are rejected, instead of working constructively with the government,” noted Vladislav Davankov and, taking advantage of the moment, spoke about the principles of parliamentary work of the “New People”, aimed at constructive interaction with the government . “The LDPR also supports the budget, because the budget is the most important document of our country. And to say that we should not accept it means to say that today schools in the countryside and in the city will not be repaired, someone will not receive a salary,” Nikita Berezin formulated his antitheses.

True, this is where the discussions on air ended, since, having worked on the budgetary and parliamentary topic, the participants then carefully followed in the wake of the prepared theses. Vladislav Davankov continued to acquaint the audience with the agenda of his party and demanded to give “more freedom” to teachers and students, Nikita Berezin increasingly referred to the thirty-year “populist” struggle of the LDPR and its founder, and Nikolai Kharitonov – to the Soviet experience and the need to end capitalism at least in a single country. Well, in the third round (on digital trends), the voices of the candidates almost merged into a single chorus: party members unanimously called for reforming the Unified State Examination, finally increasing teachers’ salaries and building practice-oriented training for students in universities and colleges.

In principle, a heated discussion between opponents could not arise, political scientist Konstantin Kalachev summed up the results of the first round: “The format itself kills these debates in the bud: no one aggravates anything, and discussion is not intended from the very beginning. From my point of view, it should have been called not a “debate”, but “pre-election speeches of presidential candidates.” Moreover, among the participants there was no one “who would aggravate the situation,” and each candidate “played off his audience” and acted in a “party niche,” the expert notes. In general, in his opinion, the first round was most likely left to Vladislav Davankov, although he was “visibly nervous.” Nikolai Kharitonov’s attempt to “attack the rest” was intended to work on the image of “the most opposition party,” but it will not bring dividends, and the LDPR’s speech will leave more questions, Mr. Kalachev argues: “It’s one thing when Putin doesn’t go to debates, another thing is when Putin doesn’t go to debates.” party leader. Zhirinovsky never refused to debate and did not mince words. And, of course, the most important thing here is that it will be remembered that it was not clear who was from the LDPR.”

Grigory Leiba