LDPR promises to address the problems of the rural population

On Wednesday, the LDPR presented to journalists the results of a large-scale survey of village residents, which it intends to form the basis of the future party program for the development of the Russian countryside. The Liberal Democrats promise to work on the rural issue “for a long time” and, by their own admission, do not expect an immediate electoral effect. The expert agrees with this assessment and does not expect a “turning point” in the attitude of the villagers towards the LDPR.

LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky has been consistently weaving the rural agenda into party trends since last summer. He gave a formal start to this process in August, at a party youth rally. “Activists will begin to develop points of attraction for young people (in rural areas.— “Kommersant”): creative spaces for communication, sports, quality intellectual leisure,” the party chairman promised then.

To develop the topic, the Liberal Democrats conducted a large-scale (over 36 thousand respondents) survey of residents of Russian villages, the results of which were presented on December 6 at a thematic press conference. The needs and hopes of the villagers, identified by party researchers, predictably rested on three components – money, prospects and infrastructure.

“The majority of respondents said about their financial situation that they only have enough money to pay for food and housing and communal services; even purchasing clothes is quite difficult,” said Leonid Slutsky, adding that low salaries and lack of jobs are “one of the main reasons” outflow of rural youth to cities.

Among the problems of their settlements, villagers also named the lack of amenities and infrastructure (42%), bad roads (21%) and high utility tariffs (17%).

“The issue of development of rural areas must be resolved immediately,” Mr. Slutsky emphasized. “The village is emptying, there are no creative territories, no jobs, and some targeted projects will not solve the problem throughout the country.” The LDPR, he continued, has already taken the first step towards the formation of a rural program with the working title “Back to the Village.” Its components include a preferential mortgage rate for individual housing construction, interest-free loans for rural enterprises, subsidies for service companies, etc.

“We are not talking about forcibly moving someone to the village, God forbid! — the LDPR leader prudently added. “We are talking about creating conditions.”

The pitfalls that reformers risk tripping over were outlined by the ex-governor of the Smolensk region, Alexey Ostrovsky, who left this post in the spring of 2023. He took the floor immediately after Mr. Slutsky – making a reservation, however, that he represented his own, and not the party’s, position – and discussed in detail about the not very extensive tools available to regional authorities, investments from big business, farmland and other purely managerial issues.

The contours of the upcoming legislative work were outlined by deputies of the LDPR faction in the State Duma. Vladimir Koshelev recalled the importance of social infrastructure, Evgeniy Markov called for focusing on the development of private farms, and Andrei Lugovoy, who oversees the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions in the party, on their agricultural potential. “We see our task as transforming these two regions from a walking field into a full-fledged agricultural region,” he explained.

Answering Kommersant’s question whether the Liberal Democrats expect an increase in electoral support from rural residents in connection with the focus on village projects, Leonid Slutsky emphasized that all conclusions, one way or another, will have to be made by the voters themselves: “The question is not for us, it’s for to the villagers: if they evaluate our efforts as aimed at their lives and their future, they will vote for the LDPR.” Assessments, apparently, will not follow immediately, as follows from the words of Mr. Slutsky: “If you deal with rural areas shallowly, it will be a caricature; you can only study with immersion for years to come… We tried to present some reference points, and I must say that within a year it will be possible to judge whether we are on the right path, and the villagers will judge.”

“Often, both the voter and the media forget that the LDPR is an opposition party, that we do not have a majority, therefore the LDPR cannot directly influence certain decisions,” Alexey Ostrovsky recalled in this regard, although he immediately made a reservation that after the election Chairman Leonid Slutsky, the number of adopted party initiatives “increased immeasurably.” “And what the chairman and colleagues spoke about will, to some extent, certainly be supported by the government sooner or later,” the ex-governor showed optimism. The very implementation of party plans by the authorities, Mr. Ostrovsky is sure, “attracts additional votes from various segments of the population.”

President of the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation Mikhail Vinogradov does not expect a “turning point” in the attitude of villagers towards the Liberal Democrats: “The voting of villagers still remains more administratively regulated than the Russian average, and in this regard, the village has great potential for increasing votes in the benefit of the authorities when necessary.” The “rural” program of the LDPR does not yet seem to the expert to be “revolutionary” and generally one that “would encourage you to drop everything and talk about it.” Turning to the rural theme is more like a “search for oneself” for the liberal democrats, the political scientist argues: “They are looking for some kind of optimal balance between a meaningful position and the fight with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for second place, on the one hand, and the position of a “freak party”, which historically brought the LDPR the main votes, on the other.”

Grigory Leiba