The leaders of the Duma factions and the head of the Central Election Commission spoke at the “Territory of Meanings”

The leaders of the Duma factions and the chairman of the Central Election Commission, Ella Pamfilova, spoke to the guests of the educational forum “Territory of Meanings” on Friday. The heads of the factions tried to demonstrate unity, patriotism and support for the president, but still somewhat differed in their views on the need to turn to socialism and the persecution of Russians who fled the mobilization and returned to their homeland. Ella Pamfilova argued, if at all, then in absentia with Western ill-wishers of the Russian electoral system: this system, in spite of everything, is constantly being improved, no longer needs to look back at Western examples, and is generally ready for “the most important event for Russia and the whole world” – presidential elections in 2024.

Traditionally, during the political session of the forum (this year it is called “To Serve”), participants meet with the leaders of the Duma factions. For most of them – Vladimir Vasiliev (ER), Gennady Zyuganov (KPRF) and Sergei Mironov (SRZP) – this is a familiar format. Alexei Nechaev (New People) and Leonid Slutsky (the new leader of the Liberal Democratic Party) have a little less experience. The discussion, as a rule, is structured in such a way that the leaders of the factions do not slide into an argument, but, on the contrary, show unity. So, one of the participants wanted to ask the party members what they think about the thesis that the United Russia appropriates the “laurels” of other parties for their initiatives. Moderator Vlad Portnov removed this question, explaining that it is necessary to discuss something “substantive”, and not slide into “showdown”.

In the substantive part of the discussion, some variability in the positions of party members sometimes manifested itself. They all advocated victory in a special military operation (SVO) and expressed support for President Vladimir Putin, but some problems were interpreted differently. Thus, a representative of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation asked the leaders of the factions if it was time to leave the capitalist way of life, so that there would be no officials and oligarchs with yachts. Mr. Zyuganov immediately recalled that during the storming of Berlin in 1945, “every second was a member of the Komsomol and a communist,” and warmly supported the appeal to historical experience: “We have reached a dead end – we are taxiing to a Soviet socialist construction site.” Mr. Slutsky, of course, could not but object to him, at the same time calling for the rejection of class contradictions: “The path of solution is not in socialism … the question is that today we are experiencing a moment of truth, the main one in our modern history. And at the call of the Liberal Democratic Party, various political forces stood shoulder to shoulder together to resist Nazism, for the sound ideas of the president, for our people, for our quick great victory!” But Sergei Mironov returned the conversation to the left agenda and urged to stop helping the “offshore oligarchy”: “Our party has a very good project -” USSR 2.0: Sovereign Socialist Fair Russia “”. Alexei Nechaev noted that there was no need to deal with the problems of the past: the oligarchs, according to him, left and no longer have power in Russia, and socialism is “capitalism turned inside out”, so it’s time for Russia to look for a new path. “Now there are two hostile images of the future that are not suitable for us,” Mr. Nechaev explained. “These are the Chinese version of the social rating society and the Schwab version of the society, inclusive capitalism (Klaus Schwab, German economist.— “b”). Russia must build a third road.” And Vladimir Vasiliev turned to examples of Russian entrepreneurship, for example, the development of technologies for the production of liquefied gas: “There are no such technologies anywhere in the world. You want it with one decree (destroy.— “b”)? It is not that simple”.

The head of the Semibugorinsky village council (Astrakhan region), Artur Gildeev, said that he had a question from the mothers of citizens who died in the NVO: when will they punish those who left the mobilization abroad and then returned. Here, too, the party members were not united. “When he runs, you have to be responsible for it,” Gennady Zyuganov responded. “Give us the data, we will not leave a single case unpunished,” Leonid Slutsky announced. “If a person is liable for military service, was subject to mobilization, left and returned, he should be criminally punished,” Sergei Mironov interpreted the situation somewhat broadly. “Give us the data.” Aleksey Nechaev tried to reduce the intensity: “It is very important for us that there is no split in our society. Whoever behaved this way, let it be on their conscience. And Vladimir Vasiliev simply approached Mr. Gildeev and asked him to give him the lists of those who had evaded. There were no lists, so the head got it. “I don’t know what kind of voters you have, I wouldn’t vote for this,” Mr. Vasiliev said and closed the topic.

Chairman of the Central Election Commission Ella Pamfilova also took part in the Open Dialogue with the forum participants. She immediately recalled that in March 2024, the “coolest” and “most important” political event is expected not only for Russia, but for the whole world – the election of the Russian president. The electoral system is ready for the event: “In 2016 I came (to the CEC.— “b”), and we are sweeping out, cleaning out everything unworthy from our electoral system,” said Ms. Pamfilova. In her opinion, Russians have a heightened sense of justice and rejection of lies, so the requirements for the electoral system have increased incredibly. Western electoral systems, according to Ms. Pamfilova, on the contrary, are degrading, reflecting the will of the minority. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to focus on them, but, on the contrary, you need to keep your eyes open: “in order to divert attention from the degradation of their own electoral systems,” the West, according to the head of the Central Executive Committee, fed “so-called independent experts” in Russia, “pressing to the nail” Russia’s electoral system, which may not be ideal yet, but has changed a lot, for example, in the direction of transparency. It should be noted that at this time, the Basmanny Court in Moscow arrested until October 17 the co-chairman of the Voice movement (included in the register of foreign agents) Grigory Melkonyants in the case of organizing the activities of an undesirable organization.

Ella Pamfilova presented the audience with a presentation debunking the myths created by ill-wishers about the modern electoral system in Russia. The first myth was that “obedient officials” count the votes. “But in fact, everything is not so, because there are less than 6% of civil servants and officials in the Russian electoral system, unlike in many Western countries,” the CEC chairman noted. Most of the Russian electoral commissions, according to the Central Election Commission, are professors and teachers, in second place are people of working professions, pensioners close the top three: “Who we just don’t have are stokers, and shepherds, and professors, and businessmen.”

The second myth is that no one believes the results of the elections: this thesis, according to the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, was “nailed into the head” of the Russians, and many fell victim to the stereotype, but nevertheless, trust in the results of the presidential elections in Russia is at a historical maximum and has reached 88% . The third myth was about the unreliability of remote electronic voting, but it is refuted by the growing popularity of this method of expression of will. In 2019, when it was first used as an experiment in the Moscow elections, 11,000 people used it, and in 2023, the potential coverage of online voters reaches 20 million people across the country.

The possibilities of monitoring the course of the DEG are again expanded, like any other observation. “The myth of this summer is that every observer is tied to his place,” complained Ms. Pamfilova. In reality, according to her, there are no prohibitions, the CEC simply put things in order with the placement of observers at the polling stations, so that, on the one hand, they were given an overview, and on the other, so that overly active observers would not “sit down on the table with members of the commissions” and did not look into the booths.

Finally, Ms. Pamfilova returned to the main idea – that Russian elections are more democratic than Western ones: “We have the most important presidential elections – direct, elections of governors, heads of regions – direct. It doesn’t exist in the States.” According to her, there are no direct elections of the highest official in Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Greece and many other countries, and elections in these countries are organized by officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Justice. In the United States, unlike Russia, there is no election monitoring in 42 out of 50 states, Ella Pamfilova said, and in 17 states international monitoring is expressly prohibited. In a number of countries, there is no such format at all: “That is, they send troops to us, but they don’t let them in … And our specks are turned into logs.”

Andrey Vinokurov, Elena Rozhkova