We publish and English translation of an report by the Russian Maoist Party (RMP) on the recent presidential elections in Russia.
In Russia during March 15-17 the so-called Presidential elections took place. Politically, everything has been clear with them for a long time; we wrote about this in our statement https://t.me/rusmaoparty/4336 There was not a single, even remotely acceptable candidate; the elections were held under conditions of severe censorship and repression and with a lot of violations. Therefore, they had and could not have anything in common with the “will of the people.”
What specific violations were there? Firstly, it is coercion to vote. Many facts have been collected when bosses forced their subordinates to go to the polls, and then also report whether they voted or not, and in what form (in person or remitely). It was in this way that the ultra-high turnout that Ella Pamfilova, head of the Central Election Commission, boasted about, was achieved.
Secondly, there was outright bribery of voters. The “Million Prizes” campaign was held in Moscow, when a prize was awarded for participation in electronic voting. Moreover, this was literally imposed through SMS, emails, the Electronic Home application, etc.
Thirdly, there was no secrecy in voting with a paper ballot. There were no closed booths; police officers stood nearby and did not hesitate to look into what people were writing. At some polling stations there were transparent ballot boxes, and you could see exactly how a person voted. Our comrade was asked to unfold the ballot, which he had folded and was about to put in the ballot box.
Finally, electronic voting or DEG is a separate story; a lot has already been said about its absolute opacity and ease of falsifying results. Previously, it was used only in Moscow, but now electronic voting has been extended to another 28 regions.
The opposition’s tactics were to use this spectacle called «elections» to demonstrate protest against the authorities and their course. To achieve this, different methods were used, from relatively moderate to openly extremist.
In January, the RMP issued a call to spoil the ballot, writing progressive slogans on it, and to vote in person on the last day of the election. The Just World coalition of left-wing organizations later issued a similar call, adding support for the liberal opposition’s idea to go to the polls on Sunday at 12.00.
When voting began, reports began to come in that at some polling stations girls were filling ballot boxes with green paint. The opposition did not call for such actions. Apparently, this was a gesture of desperation on the part of single people. The authorities reacted extremely harshly. Pamfilova called the girls “scum.” Those detained face criminal prosecution and several years in prison. There was also at least one case where a woman became a victim of telephone scammers (a separate, very sore subject in recent years), and they forced her to commit this act. Which, of course, was used by the authorities to discredit the opposition.
The widely publicized action of Navalny’s supporters frightened the authorities, although in the end it turned out to be quite modest in results. Before the elections, the prosecutor’s office issued a warning that coming to polling stations at 12:00 on Sunday would be regarded as participation in an unauthorized rally. Riot police were on duty at the entrance to the polling stations and on Sunday it was reinforced; special wagons for ttansporting arrested were even brought to some polling stations.
Probably the purpose of the liberals’ action was to photograph the queues by 12.00 and report on the mass participation in the action. The action had the greatest effect abroad, for obvious reasons, as well as the limited capacity of polling stations in embassies. In Russia, of course, there were queues at many polling stations, but they did not take a mass character. However, even in those polling stations where there were no queues, by 12.00 there was an influx of people, and everyone was choosing paper ballots.
Another protest option (in our opinion, not the most successful) was voting for other candidates, primarily for Davankov. In those polling stations where there were observers, as well as abroad, he received quite a lot of votes. The “invalid ballot” candidate also performed well.
As for the election results and the actual mood of voters, the figure of 87%, of course, does not reflect them at all. Putin’s real support is of course lower. Perhaps he would have gained about 50% in truly free elections, but that is not a fact. Voting for Putin, in addition to coercion, is a manifestation of indifference, despair and cynicism, but not active support for him.
While there is a demand for change and a significant number of opposition supporters, the majority remains passive. As the last few years have shown, despite the ability of the liberal opposition to take its supporters into the streets and cause riots, they have not been able to “reach out” to the majority, and people generally take the position of «this does not concern us». This allowed the authorities to crush the opposition with repression and reduce its influence to a minimum, preventing the opposition movement from capturing wider layers outside its traditional social base – the educated youth of large cities. To do this, it is necessary to address not only the political, but also the socio-economic agenda.
Illustration photo from Russian election in 2018. Credit: OSCE/Urdur Gunnarsdottir