Several fundamental elements will distinguish the 2007 Duma election campaign from previous campaigns.
Firstly, it will take place in line with the new electoral legislation. Its main novelty is the
switch to a proportional electoral system without single-mandate constituencies. This change is very advantageous to the opposition. The point is that businessmen and lobbyists often became deputies in single-mandate constituencies and in this capacity they were very interested in the party of power. So most of them entered the United Russia faction, which is closely linked to the government.
But United Russia has renounced this system, voting for the switch to the new political system. This was done at the initiative of Vladimir Putin, who is more interested in strong political parties, which express public interests, than in a parliamentary majority which supports him. And if the 2003 elections, for example, had taken place under the current system, United Russia would not have over 300 deputies, as it does now, but less than half this number. So it would not have a constitutional majority or even less a simple ajority.
But this was a deliberate decision by Putin and - under his influence - by United Russia, to offer greater opportunities for the development to political parties and first and foremost to opposition political parties. It also facilitates a purging of political parties, factions and the parliament of lobbyists connected with the criminal world, the majority of whom were elected from precisely these single-mandate constituencies rather than from party lists.
Another important change is the abandonment of the "against everyone" voting option. This also presents greater opportunities to the opposition since those voting "against everyone" are in one way or another voting against the authorities. And now some of those voting "against everyone" will perhaps not vote at all, but some of them will vote, and they will vote for the opposition parties. This will of course strengthen their position.
The impossibility of creating blocs under the new legislation reduces the opposition's strength by making the possibility of them temporarily uniting and consolidating at a critical moment in the elections more difficult. Increasing the electoral barrier (from 5 to 7 percent) creates a small advantage for the party that wins, which is usually called the party of power, since the number of those who do not get into parliament increases and this means that votes cast for parties that fail to get in are distributed between the winners in numbers proportionate to the number of votes gained by them. Thus, votes are acquired by all the winners but in line with the result achieved, so the main winner gets a somewhat larger number, in particular - the party of power. But at the same time, this change from a fundamental point of view assists the opposition since it forces the minor opposition parties to unite into larger ones. The new electoral barrier leaves them no chances, it presents them with a harsh choice: either you will disappear altogether or you unite into a single major force. Thus, while the raising of the barrier is tactically more of an advantage for the party of power, strategically it assists to a larger extent the development of an opposition.
So the forthcoming elections are very seriously aimed at the political parties being stronger and first and foremost at the opposition being strengthened. And United Russia will establish its position not because of changes to the electoral system but because it is more closely connected with Putin in this election, and, in the eyes of the voters, it acts as a known guarantor of the continuation of his policies. This is expressed in United Russia's main electoral platform - "Putin's Plan".
The abandonment of the single-mandate constituencies has created big problems for criminal money since its possessors now have no opportunity to acquire a place in parliament for themselves by investing large sums in an election campaign in a single-mandate constituency. They now need to go through the party structures. And while someone who was connected with criminal circles could previously invest money in an election campaign at his own risk, there is no such need for his money now. At the same time, if such a candidate appears on a party list, then he acts as a drag on all the remaining party members. And honest and decent candidates do not want to be in the same team as a criminal at all. Before they would have just winced and said: "Well, this man is from a single-mandate constituency, he does not particularly influence us" - but they will now oppose criminal candidates. This will create great difficulties for the latter and the opportunity will arise for a radical purge of parliamentary ranks to be conducted, of lobbyists connected with criminals or who have a criminal past.
Some businessmen who have made a fortune by criminal means are already trying to rid themselves of their criminal past and to go clean. However, it would seem that it is not only businessmen with a criminal present among deputies that citizens of Russia do not want to have, but also businessmen with a criminal past. They do not want this criminal past to be forgiven them. They think that Russia is worthy of having deputies without a criminal past.
The parties have already encountered this problem. But some of them, particularly the regional party organizations, have been tempted to yield to pressure from businessmen connected with the criminal world, since the latter openly strive to force their way onto the party lists. And under these conditions, some parties have caved in when faced with criminals. Judging by the press, it is thought that this applies mostly to Just Russia, which had to be assembled so quickly that there were often no organizational opportunities to check out all those involved in party construction. The LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) is also traditionally reproached for this and, naturally, some United Russia organizations - they did not have enough strength to resist either since it is the party of power that such lobbyists want to be attached to.
Under these conditions, Vladimir Putin has helped political parties by strengthening their will to oppose criminals. As you know, the president demanded at a meeting with the Just Russia leader that the party lists of candidates be purged of criminals, since they have got into Just Russia more than anywhere else. As a result, the media write, Just Russia will possibly refuse to cooperate with Yevgeniy Royzman, who is considered to be mixed up with criminal links. Admittedly, the Just Russia regional organizations have come out in support of Yevgeniy Royzman and Aleksandr Novikov. So the question is still topical - will they renounce links with Yevgeniy Royzman or not, especially since he actively took part in creating this party and developing some of its structures? Dmitriy Utkin, whom the Sverdlovsk section of Just Russia included on its list of candidates for the State Duma in this election, supports Royzman and Novikov. A question arises regarding Aleksandr Skorobogatko from the LDPR who, some people maintain, was linked with Crimean crime groups. In general, many questions usually arise for the LDPR concerning its links with the criminal world. United Russia has also had to make efforts to purge its ranks. In particular, there are questions concerning Vladimir Krupchak, a United Russia deputy who wanted to stay in the State Duma. It seems that since he understood that he might fail to get into United Russia, Vladimir Krupchak decided to hedge his bets and create a secondary landing site for himself in Just Russia. There is also some talk about the entrepreneur Vadim Varshavskiy, who is also connected with United Russia. A question for the party leaders: will these people be on the lists or not? And are they prepared to disclose the history behind the development of their businesses?
The possibility that information about links between some of these candidates and the criminal world are smears on the part of their opponents cannot be ruled out either. But we see that information about their possible link with the criminal world constantly appears with regard to these people and it would be good if the leaders of these parties could either exclude them from the ranks of their candidates or clearly and unambiguously show and demonstrate that they have no link with the criminal world.
Public opinion does not after all raise questions about decent businessmen well-known to everyone, such as, for example, Vladimir Gruzdev the owner of Sedmoy Kontinent who financed the recent Russian expedition to the Arctic, which made us take pride in Russia. Even his rivals write nothing about his links with the criminal world - he evidently does not have any such links. So there are quite transparent businessmen among the deputies.
Of course, many Russian businessmen violated the law during the troubled 1990s, when there was virtually no law. But there is actually a big and fundamental difference between some violations of laws connected with privatization, inaccurately-written laws, and a direct link with the criminal world, with gangsters, with monsters who have killed people. And citizens sense this link and they demand that these people are purged from parliaments of all levels, first and foremost the State Duma.
Vladimir Putin, as someone who relies on the majority, transmits this will of the majority of citizens of Russia to the parties. In so doing, he strengthens their will. It is also, naturally, in the interests of the party leaders to rid the parties of criminals but they often do not have sufficient strength to manifest their will. And then the criminals force through their candidates, first and foremost via regional party organizations, using the services of perhaps not very rich and not very honest people in some regional cells. And within the framework of the current election campaign, we should in every way possible support the policy of strengthening the will of party leaders to rid their parties of criminals.
Society also hopes that the new prime minister will support the policy of de-criminalizing the political parties' electoral lists. It is well-known that the new prime minister has accumulated a lot of information on corrupt links, including links with the criminal world, and it might be supposed that he is to a certain extent itching to act and he would like to make use of this information as quickly as possible. The new prime minister probably has information not only about direct criminals but also about the political representatives of the criminals, who were also present in the previous State Duma and who need to be got rid of.
The election campaign may lead to a strengthening of the political parties' roles altogether (since they have been given great powers and the prime minister will, possibly after the elections, cooperate more closely with the parliamentary majority) and to an increase in opposition political parties in particular. After all, a proportional system - without single-mandate constituencies - will give them more deputies. But it will at the same time lead to the growth of the United Russia party since its place will become clearer to voters - it means the implementation of Putin's plan. In this sense, United Russia may act as the systems-based guarantor of the continuation of Putin's policies, without Putin as president. And at the same time, this election campaign may lead to an increase in citizens' trust in the parliament and parties if they rid themselves of the criminal elements. So, while previous tasks have already been more or less completed by the president and all that remains is for the parties to take advantage of what has been done, getting rid of criminals is a task facing the parties themselves. Society hopes that the parties will finally succeed at the congresses which are currently under way in getting rid of both the direct representatives of the criminal world and those who are connected with criminal money, as well as political representatives of criminal and semi-criminal businesses.
