The opposition did not want to repeat – Newspaper Kommersant No. 192 (7393) of 10/17/2022

More than half of the 267 Moscow municipal deputies elected in 2017 with the assistance of the United Democrats opposition platform did not participate in the 2022 elections, and out of 55 included on the ballot, only four managed to be re-elected for a new term. This follows from the report published on Monday by the human rights project “OVD-Info” (included by the Ministry of Justice in the register of foreign agents). Those who were unable to register were most often denied due to document problems and accusations of displaying extremist symbols. The expert believes that the work of the Mundep was simply a burden for many activists.

In his report, OVD-Info analyzed data on the participation of representatives of the corps of municipal deputies of Moscow, elected in 2017 (a total of 1,502 district deputies), in the municipal elections held in September this year. As experts found out, almost half of the deputies – 721 people – did not begin to be re-elected for a new term. Of those who decided to take part in the elections, 682 deputies were able to register. 99 deputies did not reach the final of the election campaign for various reasons, including the loss of candidate status (49 people), refusal to register (34) and emigration (16). Most of the acting deputies who were nominated, but not included in the result on the ballots, turned out to be in Yabloko (44 people) and among self-nominees (31), the rest represented the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (14) and United Russia (10).

Separately, experts studied the fate of 267 deputies who won in 2017 thanks to the United Democrats project led by politicians Dmitry Gudkov and Maxim Katz (both left Russia; Maxim Katz is included in the register of foreign agents), which helped independent candidates in the nomination and campaigning. In 2022, instead of a single platform, the opposition opened several small projects or nominated candidates from their own teams. As a result, only in one district, independent candidates were in the majority, in another, oppositionists and government nominees received an equal number of mandates, and in the rest of the councils, deputies from United Russia and My District won the majority. For comparison: in 2017, in eight districts, United Russia did not receive a single mandate, and in 24 councils they were in the minority.

According to the authors of the report, 136 out of 267 deputies elected in 2017 with the help of the United Democrats did not become re-elected in 2022, 76 did not reach the final stage of the elections (including 14 people who were forced to leave Russia), and only 55 were on the ballot as candidates. Only four deputies from this list managed to be re-elected. 16 deputies were denied registration due to problems with documents, and 10 because of claims for signatures. Another 14 deputies faced accusations of “demonstrating extremist symbols”, usually associated with Alexei Navalny’s “Smart Voting” project. Seven candidates were withdrawn from the elections due to “involvement in extremist activities”, expressed in participation in unsanctioned protests and actions. The legislation on “foreign agents” prevented only one deputy from participating in the elections, and Denis Prokuronov lost his registration due to “inaccurate information” about himself: he considered himself a “candidate affiliated with a foreign agent,” but the Ministry of Justice did not confirm this information.

In addition, OVD-Info experts collected statistics on bringing the municipalities elected in 2017 to criminal and administrative liability. According to these data, 11 deputies turned out to be defendants in criminal cases over five years, 9 of which are oppositionists. Most often (three cases each), they were accused of spreading fake news about the army and violating sanitary standards during rallies (“sanitary business”). Other cases concerned allegations of libel, fraud, and repeated violations of the rules for holding rallies (“Dadi’s article”).

Significantly more administrative cases were filed against the deputies – 178. Basically, protocols were issued under the “rally” articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses (58), for “demonstration of extremist symbols” (24) and “participation in activities in an undesirable organization” (23). And after the start of the special operation in Ukraine, the oppositionists were also charged with an article about discrediting the army (24 protocols).

Political scientist Alexander Asafov believes that the fact that for many, the work of a municipal deputy turned out to be a burden, influenced the decrease in the desire of activists to participate in elections: “It is one thing to get a political platform to convey your ideas, another to engage in routine meetings and signing boring documents. In addition, it became obvious to many that such a status does not provide any additional protection in their political activities.” In addition, this time, potential candidates had fewer effective centers to support their participation in the elections, the expert notes: “Yes, there were schools. But their effectiveness was much lower than last time. As a result, candidates made commonplace mistakes in documents when trying to register.” As for the pressure of the security forces, it is unlikely that the status of a candidate for deputies somehow seriously affected the work of law enforcement officers, the political scientist adds: “I don’t think that the hypothesis that if a person went to municipal deputies, then he was perceived as more dangerous for authorities and to him there was special attention, is true.

Kira Heifetz, Andrey Vinokurov