With a view on replacement: which current politicians were nominated to the Duma for fun

Experts talk about profanation and that democratic institutions do not work.

Yelena Ivanova, Natalia Seibil

What have political observers and the media discussing since the parliamentary elections two weeks ago? What committees will politicians get, and what will change with the arrival of new and old people in the Duma?

Not at all.

The pages of news feeds are filled with information about which of those who have passed will NOT go to the State Duma. Lavrov, Shoigu, Protsenko, Shmelyova - four people from the top five of United Russia at once, whose portraits were pasted over the cities and regions of the country, and who promised a golden future to the Russians under their leadership and the leadership of their ruling party, did not accept the mandates of the deputies.

After the main persons of United Russia returned to the "places of service", regional lists fell: Governor of the Sverdlovsk Region Kuvaishev, Acting Head of the Penza Region Melnichenko, Governor of the Perm Territory Makhonin, writer Zakhar Prilepin... Refuseniks are innumerable.

It is unpleasant to feel deceived, but Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who refused the mandate of a deputy from Ugra, will at least remain in the Duma on party lists. And here is the face of the renewed Fair Russia, to whose name the addition “For Truth” was added because of him, Zakhar Prilepin “presented” his mandate to the unknown Dmitry Kuznetsov from Nizhny Novgorod. The Duma did not suit the writer, and he decided to "focus" on studying at the School of Governors. According to Prilepin's press secretary, he decided to wait for a proposal for some governor's post. The question arises: why was it necessary to fool people's heads and, like a siren, lure them with stories about patriotism, when on September 22 Zakhar Prilepin had already sat down at the “governor’s desk”. Probably, he signed up there long before the elections, or the first person he meets from the street is taken to the School of Governors? Like, Zakhar walked by, looked in, and they said there: of course, come in, Zakhar, we invite everyone, here we have the beginning of classes the day after tomorrow!

Yuliy Nisnevich, Doctor of Political Science, reminds that the talk that this shop with "steam locomotives" needs to be legally closed has been going on for a long time, but no one wants to take on this responsibility. This is understandable: here, with a turnout and under Shoigu and Lavrov, they are not very good, with all imaginable and inconceivable efforts, up to 40% cannot catch up, and who will go to vote for Ivanov-Petrov-Sidorov? And the fact that these citizens then sit in parliament, as if they were there, does not bother anyone.

- The whole problem is that instead of famous people people who are not familiar to anyone come. They vote for the first part of the list, and instead of them come those about whom no one knows anything at all. From my point of view, to put it mildly, this is misleading voters. For the first time now I saw that it was publicly discussed that four of the top five definitely do not go in advance, only one young lady is there - the ombudsman for children's issues. The problem there is that if none of the top five go at all, it is completely indecent. - says Nisnevich.

This practice of stupefying the voter dates back to 1995 with the party of the then Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin “Our Home is Russia”, better known among the people as “Our Home is Gazprom”. Political strategists, quite democratic people, Georgy Satarov and Mark Urnov, came up with this idea before the parliamentary elections. Then people popular in the regions were invited to head the list of the party in power.

In 1995, the list was headed by Viktor Chernomyrdin, Nikita Mikhalkov and Lev Rokhlin. Of these, only Rokhlin went to the Duma. Neither Nikita Sergeevich nor Viktor Stepanovich went to the Duma. And among the communists, the first number was Aman Tuleyev, who also refused the mandate.

In 2003, in the United Russia elections, already a third of the elected candidates to the State Duma did not go. Of the 120 elected according to the proportional system, 37 people refused mandates. From the first United Russia list - Gryzlov, Shoigu, Luzhkov and Shaimiev - only Gryzlov, noted for the aphorism "Parliament is not a place for discussion", accepted the mandate, becoming the speaker of the State Duma.

This pre-election trick has been going on for more than a quarter of a century, but the Russian voter has not grown wiser. Shoigu is on the list - great, so I’ll vote, the man in the street thinks. And whether he will be there or not - nobody cares.

This speaks of the profanation of the election procedure, because it is quite obvious that some characters appear in public, while completely different ones go to the Duma, says journalist and political observer Nikolay Svanidze:

"It was clear that the governor would not go to the Duma. Why should he change the governor's chair to a much lower one, the deputy's one? It was clear that such leading ministers as the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not give up their posts and would not go to the Duma as deputies. It is obvious. Nevertheless, an ordinary voter is bought by a famous person, goes to vote".

Some "vote with their hearts", while others will not get anything for such a forgery. This is a question of morality, as moralists say, or political expediency, as everyone who is involved in politics in Russia thinks.

There is also a formal side to this whole performance. Of course, the deputies are formally equated with all social guarantees to ministers. But everyone understands perfectly well that the position of a deputy, except for the speaker of parliament, is less significant than the position of a minister. Both ministers are in the power bloc and report personally to the president. Why should they go to the Duma, asks a rhetorical question Juliy Nisnevich. Moreover, "there", at the top, the deputy mandate is an honorable resignation. Everyone in the political elite understands this. Ministers of such a level as Lavrov or Shoigu are known to everyone, they are heard and all the time in the information field. And who knows what the names of the deputy chairmen of the State Duma are?

Now the technical design of the parliament's lightness has taken place, says Nikolay Svanidze:

- Institutes don't work. They are made of cardboard. The cardboard institute of elections, the cardboard institute of parliament, the cardboard institute of the court, the cardboard institute of local self-government - all those institutions on which a modern, real developed democratic society stands. Democracy is, first of all, working institutions. All this does not work for us. Everything is profane.

This attitude towards democracy is very harmful for the country. It ends with people giving up believing and thinking that democracy is a complete deception. But persistent repetition from one election to another only confirms the idea that this corresponds to the intentions of the authorities. The belief that democracy is something effective is being erased. People are beginning to think that everywhere it is - sheer lies, lies and falsehood. And the real power is a man with a firm hand, a dictator. This is order. From this comes, in many ways, and the revival of pro-Stalinist sentiments.

It would seem that such a situation plays into the hands of the opposition parties in the same parliament. After all, what prevents the communists or other parties from showing their weight? But this also requires other factors, analysts say, and chief among them is the weakening of power.

- As soon as the power weakens, its fangs will begin to dull or fall out, the communists will show their fangs. But while the power is strong, they will be with it, huddle to the leg. While the government is strong enough. - Svanidze thinks.

Such a derogatory attitude to the will of the voters is ours, dear, primordial. In other countries, experts say, this is not the case. This is also due to the specifics of the electoral system. The idea of making the top three among those who are popular with voters is quite constructive and attractive before the elections. But in democratic countries no politician would think of giving up a place on the party list. Do you know why? This is not appropriate.