Political scientists discussed the merits of elections in Russia

The Expert Institute for Social Research discussed the merits of the Russian electoral system on Thursday. Theorists and practitioners of the electoral procedure have concluded that trust in it is growing, and it itself is becoming more convenient and flexible, despite the attempts of some international organizations to convince Russians and the whole world of the opposite.

The round table “Elections in Russia: important, fair and convenient” opened with figures from an August VTsIOM survey on Russians’ trust in the election results, which over two years has grown 1.3 times – to 61%. “The growth of trust in elections means an increase in trust in the authorities in general, an increase in the legitimacy of the authorities in the eyes of society,” said moderator, political scientist Pavel Danilin.

According to political scientist Vladimir Shapovalov, the importance of the procedure is not in vain emphasized in the title of the event, because democracy is the fundamental basis of Russian statehood. Elections themselves, according to the expert, perform a number of functions, including public control over the activities of government, coordination of interests of social groups and communication between government and society: “Elections are a kind of barometer that shows the current political climate as a whole in the country or in the region”.

At the same time, elections serve as an indicator of sovereignty, Mr. Shapovalov noted, because “only in a sovereign state is it possible to form power independently,” without foreign influences. “Of course, these influences exist,” he admitted. “But society has developed absolute immunity against attempts to shake itself up and question the election results.” The expert is sure that their very conduct reflects the “stability and normality” of current processes, and new formats (remote and multi-day voting) made it possible to maintain this “normality”, first in the era of the pandemic, and then during the fighting.

Elections have also become convenient, political scientist Anna Fedorova recalled: “It’s always nice when the state does something convenient for people.” Trained by interaction with the State Services, Russians, she is sure, also accept the remote format of voting, especially since elections are the same “service that a democratic state is obliged to provide to people.” Multi-day voting, according to the political scientist, is “ideal” simply “from the point of view of common sense.” In this way, convenience was achieved without compromising the legitimacy and transparency of the procedure. “As convenience increases, turnout increases, which means that you need to work with voters carefully, carefully and thoughtfully,” Ms. Fedorova finally warned her fellow political strategists.

The system of monitoring elections in the Russian Federation is no less convenient and perfect, added an important point, the head of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation commission on public control, Alena Bulgakova. And the chairman of the Kherson Regional Election Commission, Marina Zakharova, found another plus: “The flexibility of the legislation, which made it possible to hold elections under martial law, encouraged our citizens to come, vote, and show their will.”

Foreign ill-wishers are still trying to spoil the picture with false statements, warned the head of the Russian Public Institute of Electoral Law, Alexander Ignatov. The three main areas of outside interference, in his opinion, are information attacks to delegitimize the procedure, influence on the free formation of the will of voters and influence on their expression of will directly at the polling stations. The number of methods of influence is expanding, which is why the Russian authorities have prudently established a number of appropriate rules for foreign agents, the expert recalled. Some international organizations are also “involved” in this work – for example, PACE and the OSCE, expressing their opinions on Russian electoral procedures, although Russia itself did not ask them to do so.

However, it is still important to analyze their position, Mr. Ignatov pointed out in response to a corresponding question from Kommersant, since Russian experts a priori “do not treat other people’s opinions as incorrect” and “study everything that concerns our elections.” “It is precisely because we are committed to dialogue, explanation and defense of our position that we conduct this monitoring, explain issues related to the activities of international organizations,” agreed Vladimir Shapovalov, emphasizing that some international organizations not only express their opinions, but also claim “universalism” and position their assessments as “the ultimate truth.” “This is one of the elements of the information campaign,” explained Mr. Shapovalov.

Grigory Leiba