LDPR celebrated the 30th anniversary of its victory in the first State Duma elections

On Thursday, the LDPR held a scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 30th anniversary of its victory in the elections to the first State Duma. The current Liberal Democrats cite the party’s pro-government position as the key reason for that success. Politicians and experts, in turn, recall the protest mood in society and the request for a “third force,” which ensured the LDPR’s first successes, although they admit that later the party took a “constructive position.”

The venue for the symposium was the University of World Civilizations, founded by the late LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and bearing his name, and the grateful audience were students of this university. “It’s strange that you’re asking us about something, we weren’t around then,” they brushed aside the “historical” questions of the Kommersant correspondent. University staff, who displayed party literature in a prominent place, also refrained from historical assessments, preferring to recall the last personal meetings with the founder of the party.

The required introductory words from the podium were asked by the current leader of the LDPR, Leonid Slutsky: “That victory was not accidental, society was shaking off the remnants of the communist system, and what Zhirinovsky and the young LDPR brought with them was extremely in demand in young Russia.” According to Mr. Slutsky, at the beginning of the “dashing 90s” the liberal democrats took a pro-state position, took responsibility for the new Constitution, “which seemed too authoritarian to the left forces,” and after success in the elections they provided balance to the “unstable structure” of the first convocation of the Duma . “No matter how events changed, the LDPR took not a pro-government, but a pro-state position,” the party leader assured.

Deputy Chairman of the United Russia faction in the State Duma Andrei Isaev, who was invited to the event, praised his colleagues for this approach to their work: “For many years, the LDPR has been doing very hard, but very necessary work – it is a constructive opposition.” He noted that parties compete in elections, which is “normal for a democratic country,” they argue on individual issues, but on fundamental topics related to protecting the interests of the state, they always find consensus. And this is also the reason for the success of the Liberal Democrats in the 1993 elections, explained the United Russia member: “The LDPR at that time was the only centrist pro-state force for which people interested in the peaceful development of the country could vote.”

The significance of the “political machine of Vladimir Zhirinovsky” for the authorities was also emphasized by political scientist Sergei Markov, who explained that the LDPR successfully accumulated votes “against everyone,” the spokesmen of which in other systems “have a colossal negative effect” because they are susceptible to manipulation and “easily go into radical projects ” “It is fortunate and fortunate for Russia that a political machine was created that gathers votes “against everyone” and turns them into normal centrist political (energy.— “Kommersant”) for constructive work,” the expert outlined the situation at that time. “The government saw that this was constructive, and the LDPR leaders received access to the media in the next election cycle,” Mr. Markov continued. In his opinion, the party’s success in the 1993 elections was ensured by its position between the dominant opposing political forces: “The so-called communists and the so-called democrats. Under these conditions, the majority of the people said: we don’t like either one or the other, who should we choose? And here the LDPR proposed a third way.”

The formulation “third force”, commenting on the events of 1993, was used in a conversation with Kommersant by State Duma deputy Konstantin Zatulin (United Russia), who represented the Party of Russian Unity and Accord in the first convocation of parliament: “The victory of the LDPR, even if relative, was is connected with the fact that Boris Yeltsin and those who previously opposed him from the side of the Supreme Council, in the eyes of many, were guilty of leading to tragedy, to shame (the events of October 1993.— “Kommersant”). Therefore, representatives of the political force that was not directly to blame for this came forward in the voting.”

However, Mr. Zatulin also pays tribute to the “verbal art” of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, which bordered on political manipulation. “He was offended by me when I reminded him of his slogans, but he was not shy about populism, he promised every woman a man, every man a bottle of vodka,” recalls the deputy. “This is an anecdotal example, but much of what Zhirinovsky claimed then , after some time he completely calmly overestimated it for himself.” In practical activities, the founder of the LDPR was “negotiable” and in “backstage moments”, in contrast to public rhetoric, “he behaved very politely and did not throw any lightning bolts,” adds Mr. Zatulin: “One was for the external, the other for the internal, if talk about the opposition to the LDPR. By the way, in my opinion, it remains so.”

“I’m not sure that Zhirinovsky said “every woman has a man,” but the fact that he was able to perfectly combine economic populism and the theme of state patriotism is a fact,” confirms political scientist Konstantin Kalachev, who also pointed out the effect of the image of a “third force.” In his opinion, the 1993 elections were “a classic of protest voting,” and the LDPR, which came “from a request,” was able to seize the “protest wave.” However, the party members did not continue those trends, the expert is sure: “There is continuity with respect to the 2000s, but not with 1993. I remember those people very well, and none of those who stood at the origins then are no longer there. In addition to the name and image of Zhirinovsky (from those times.— “Kommersant”) nothing left”.

Grigory Leiba