You Might also like
By Sean — 2 years ago
Julie Hemment, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts where she specializes in Russia, post-socialism, gender and transition, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and global civil society. She is the author of Youth Politics in Putin’s Russia: Producing Patriots and Entrepreneurs.Post Views: 121
By Sean — 10 years ago
Here are the official results TsIK (Central Electoral Commission) head Vladimir Churov gave at a press conference.
United Russia: 64.1% Communist Party of the Russian Federation: 11.6% Liberal Democratic Party: 8.2% Just Russia: 7.8% Agrarian Party of Russia: 2.3% Yabloko: 1.6% Civil Forces: 1.1% Union of Right Forces: 1.0% Patriots of Russia: 0.9% Party of Social Justice: 0.2% Democratic Party of Russia: 0.1%
The turnout of the election was 63% of registered voters.
According to VTsIOM, the 5th Duma break down might be as follows:
United Russia: 313 seats.
Communist Party: 62 seats
LDPR: 40 seats
Just Russia: 35
In comparison to the composition of the 4th Duma, here are the gains and losses for each party when they enter the 5th Duma:
United Russia: +13
Communist Party : +15
Just Russia: +2
The fact that each party gained seats is because the 7 percent threshold cut the chaff from the wheat. When the percentages of the 4th and 5th Duma are compared, you get the following gains and losses.
United Russia: -1.9%
Communist Party: -1.2%
Just Russia: +.5%
Well, this breakdown in gains and losses puts things into perspective. Essentially, there will be no real difference between the 4th and 5th Dumas. The only notable difference is the restructuring of the legislature’s composition to reflect the 7 percent law. SPS leader Boris Nadezhdin told RFE/RL that the election means that Russia “is a different country now. We have returned to the Soviet Union. It is not parliament or the next president that will have real power, but the United Russia party.” I don’t see what difference he’s talking about. Nor do I see how “the new combination of power gives the party and those who control it virtually a blank check in terms of remaking Russia’s political balance.” Um, that was kinda already the case.
Much as been made of upping the parliamentary threshold from 5 to 7 percent in July 2005. But given the returns for yesterday’s election, Russia’s liberal parties still wouldn’t have made it into the Duma even if the law stayed the same. This is still the case even if you combine Yabloko and SPS votes. Now one can say what they want about how managed and manipulated the Russian election was. But at some point SPS and Yabloko are going to have to ask themselves why they have no meaningful constituency. And blaming the Kremlin isn’t the answer.Post Views: 56
By Sean — 5 years ago
Another member of Medvedev’s camp has left the building. Sergei Guriev, the renown economist, Medvedev advisor, and rector of the New Economic School in Moscow has fled to France after being questioned by the Investigative Committee about the “Yukos Affair.” What drove him abroad has become a familiar pattern. According to two Guriev confidants, he fled Russia to avoid criminal prosecution by the Investigative Committee. Putin’s oprichniniki raided the NESh looking for Guriev on suspicion that the economic institute received money from Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Another case of embezzlement, it seems. Guriev also has a long rap sheet of silovik designated “crimes.” He defended Khodorkovsky and called his prosecution a sham. The New Economic School receives money from abroad, hosted a Barack Obama speech in 2009, and has regular contact with US Ambassador Michael McFaul. In the atmosphere of “foreign agents,” it’s surprising that it took Bastrykin this long to break down RESh’s doors. But perhaps Guriev’s real sin is that he’s working with Aleksei Navalny, the currently reigning enemy of the people. The Kremlin, of course, has denied Guriev’s politics has anything to do with anything.
Once again purging in Russia is not just what you do, it’s who you’re connected with. If all of this is true, Guriev becomes another “Medvedev liberal” turned enemy of the people for cozying with the opposition.
Granted, it’s all still a theory, but Forbes.ru is running with it. In an article, “The Guriev Case: How Liberals Stopped Being Fellow Travelers,” Boris Grozovskii argues that the Investigative Committee’s targeting of Guriev is another strike by the siloviki to purge out the technocrats. “The siloviki no longer need the services of disloyal specialists.” This evokes a tragic historical reminder:
Liberal economists, who up to this point were former “fellow travelers” and aides, like the bourgeois specialists during NEP, still haven’t been accused of being “wreckers,” but they are already becoming “internal enemies.” The siloviki, who reigned in the background of the Orange-democratic threat, are getting rid of more of them. It’s like when the engineers, technicians and economists of pre-revolutionary Russia became no longer necessary during the transition from a quasi-market to a command economy in the beginning in the 1930s. Therefore the [siloviki] are eating up the liberals.
Is Grozovskii engaging in historical hysterics or just highlighting another casualty in silovik war on corruption liberals? Either way, every week another from Medvedev’s connected technocrat suddenly gets routed.Post Views: 60