Posted 23 сентября 2021, 08:52

Published 23 сентября 2021, 08:52

Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:55

Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:55

Communal squabble: the opposition in the elections was let down due to the inability to negotiate

23 сентября 2021, 08:52
Алексей Чадаев
If in the regions the opposition had practically no chance of success, then it should only blame itself for its loss in Moscow.

Alexey Chadayev, political analyst

A few notes about the results of the results.

1. About falsification. The result correction machine is not guys with a remote control in some room behind the teeth. This is a very large social community - up to half a million people across the country. And in the system of motivations there is not only and even not so much coercion or greed. From top to bottom, the key motivation - that people are doing, albeit not entirely legal, but generally a good thing - strengthens power and does not allow outright enemies (not even the government, but the country) to win, even if only psychological. Yes, as they could, but the enemy is at the gates, no time for aesthetics.

Hence the conclusion. A key defect in the strategy of all and all oppositions is a complete inability to recruit sincere ideological supporters within the system. All these calls for lustration, radicalism in the style of "whoever is not with us is against us," and so on. - works exclusively to consolidate the system, when the motive of personal self-preservation is added to the set of performers' motives. The same thing - and, excuse me, "the support of the world community." And while it will be like this, there remains only a stake on the revolution, and here you immediately lose the philistine majority - no matter what swindlers are sitting at the top, the main thing is that everything is calm.

2. About ratings. During the campaign, the United Russia rating did not climb beyond the top thirty, but according to the lists it gained almost 50%, and according to the single-mandate - all 90%, in total, the Duma again has a constitutional majority. For me, the key here is not in the "correction" at all, but in the very structure of the mixed system. But the mixed system itself, in turn, is the result of defects in the Constitution.

I remind you. In the original model, we have a bicameral parliament. The lower chamber is the representation of all-Russian political parties, the upper chamber is the territories. But in this paradigm, it would be logical to make elections to the lower house fully proportional, without single-member constituencies. There is only one problem: the Federation Council is not capable of representing the interests of the territories; it is such an elite hospice for retirees. Therefore, the function of territorial representation also went to the lower house - hence the mixed system.

And then the following happens. Representing the interests of the territory means being an effective lobbyist, capable of opening doors in the capital and entering offices. The most convenient way to do this is being a member of the strongest and most influential political party, the one with the majority. With an opposition deputy, unless he is a genius of communication, all sorts of ministers and governors will simply not talk. Hence, one-mandate voting from cycle to cycle tends to become generally one-party.

But what kind of schizophrenic does one have to be in order to vote for a candidate from one party on a single-mandate basis, and support another on the lists? Therefore, single-mandate candidates inevitably drag the list with them. And then take into account the parallel campaigns of the regional and local levels - the governor's, in the Legislative Assembly, etc .; and there is the same mechanics. And as a result, UR, even without “corrections”, is gaining significantly higher ratings - I personally estimate the electoral result close to the final forecast of VTsIOM: 41-42%. Well, all that is on top is already, as they say, the results of socialist competition between the territories, including the "sultanates".

3. About the Moscow single-mandate elections. The only place in the country where the problem of representing the interests of the territory in the federal center does not exist at all is bingo, the city of Moscow. Therefore, a single-mandate vote here is raspberry-raspberry: the motive for voting is never interest, but only ideology. And in order to win, you just have to like it, and it is much easier to like it, being an oppositionist - that's why there is a klondike, where all the fighters against the regime have been trying their hand since time immemorial. And the bosses, in turn, do their best so that the "agreed" and not the "opposition" freaks pass from the capital to the federal parliament (recall the maxim "The Enemy Must Not Pass"). Once again: in the provinces, it is very easy for the authorities to explain to people why they should support United Russia - this is not for the party, this is for our federal transfers to the new bridge and new school. In Moscow, this is impossible to explain.

But precisely because almost nowhere, except for Moscow, oppositionists had no chances in single-mandate campaigns, a crowd of patented fighters against the regime formed in Moscow districts. Who fought the entire campaign mainly with each other, and mostly not even for voters, but for the favor of Lenya Volkov. Accordingly, when Lenya did deign to make the final choice, the losers together crap both Lenya and the lucky competitors. The diagnosis, in short, is the same as always: inability to negotiate; and no UG saved from this. On the contrary, it acted as a catalyst for communal squabbles.

How would I do in place of all these famous wrestlers? There is nothing to do in Moscow - let someone walk here in each district; while others had to go outside the Moscow Ring Road and run there, preferably - from any systemic parties that had a chance of getting through; Again, do not collect signatures. Yes, knowing in advance that you will lose; but these single-mandate campaigns would have squeezed Edr's list as a whole across the country, and all other parties would have gotten more on the lists (see the thesis on the relationship between single-mandate and list campaigns). A constitutional majority, in any case, would definitely be out of the question. But this is possible in the "common cause" mode, but with them, as always, "every man for himself".

4. About the bravura reports of spin doctors about how they won. It makes me sick. The best outcome and aftertaste of a campaign in a healthy society is when there is a feeling that the citizens have won by supporting the most worthy and respected candidate, and this is good for everyone. And all these vanity parades with detailed descriptions of how he overtook and how he cut off, even in me, who has little resemblance to an “ordinary voter”, evokes a desire, familiar from my village childhood, to manually configure the communication interface for the victors, in the “smash your face” mode. Moreover, regardless of who and from which party the aforementioned respected specialist was leading.