Municipal filter. How can oppositionists overcome the municipal filter? Numerous posters with protest slogans
There are two barriers in Russia's current election legislation. Formally, they are designed to “test” candidates for their “seriousness,” but in reality, in reality they make participation almost impossible for many political forces.
A complete distortion of the meaning and essence that our president puts into the electoral system is achieved in 2017 using the following very clever scheme.
Let's consider this technology using the example of the Perm region, where the Great Fatherland Party of Oleg Alekseevich Kharaskin is. A well-known candidate in the region, he previously headed the Perm presidential reception, an active patriot and a good business executive - ex-minister agriculture Prikamye.
And now about how competitors are not allowed to register. Step by step.
Step one. To register for the election of governor of the Perm Territory, a candidate must collect 245 signatures municipal deputies. There are more than 3.5 thousand deputies in total.
More precisely, it is necessary to collect signatures: “6% of the number of municipal heads and deputies elected in direct elections. For registration, 234 signatures are required, and a candidate can submit no more than 245. Of these, at least 51 signatures (maximum 53) must belong to the heads and deputies of municipal districts (city districts). In accordance with current legislation, they must be collected in at least 36 municipalities of the Perm Territory."
Step two. And so the political strategists came up with the following manipulation. With the help of administrative resources, the main contender for the governor's seat, who is also the acting governor, collects not 245 votes from municipal deputies, but ten times more. Although there is a decision of the Constitutional Court that you can only collect the required number of signatures for registration plus another 5%.
Step three. Municipal deputies are taken to notaries in droves, taking away their votes in violation of the law and making the registration of other candidates simply technically impossible. Indeed, in some municipalities it collects neither more nor less, but 100%
Step four. But if you think that technology is so “dumb”, then you are deeply mistaken. She is very graceful. The task is multi-level - first collect the maximum number of votes. And in the process of this “gathering”, where deputies are convinced to sign for the main candidate from United Russia, they... are fraudulently slipped another paper to sign. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Approximately 1000 votes are fraudulently collected here... in favor of the spoiler candidate. IN Perm region This is a candidate from the Patriots of Russia party. Like, put your signature also for the acting one, but one more; another signature, “so that the elections take place,” without explaining the essence of what is happening. The notaries, to please the wishes of the administration employees, violated the law “On Notaries” and did not explain why or who the deputy was signing for.
Step five. All other candidates begin collecting signatures from deputies. And then it turns out that there are practically no “free deputies” left. Despite this, our candidate O.A. Kharaskin still collects the required number of signatures from municipal deputies. Submits them to the Election Commission.
Step six. And then it turns out that out of 245 signatures, 4 signatures were allegedly previously given to the candidate from the “Patriots of Russia”. Moreover, none of these 4 deputies REMEMBER that he cast a vote for him. They put pressure on one of them, trying to make him “remember.”
Step seven. I hope you already get the point new technology cutting off dangerous competitors. You are taking all the deputies to sign for the main candidate from United Russia, and at the same time, by deception, you sign a slightly smaller number for the spoiler candidate. And when a dangerous candidate submits his signatures, you can ALWAYS find the signatures of those who allegedly signed for the Patriots of Russia party. And don't register.
Step eight. I want you to understand that it doesn’t matter whose signatures a dangerous competitor hands over, he will probably have a couple of signatures from those “obtained by deception.”
Step nine. At the same time, the appearance of openness of the process is created. Or rather, it is her illusion. " United Russia“It has nothing to do with it - they cut it off for the signatures of deputies, allegedly given to another party. It doesn’t matter that the deputies are ready to write a statement that they DID NOT SIGN IN FAVOR of the spoiler candidate. As for the other three Duma parties (CPRF, LDPR, SR), their candidates, who are in real competition (in Perm region) they do not vote for the main candidate; they receive from him a part of the “reserved” municipal votes. When it turned out that all candidates from parliamentary parties could not pass municipal filter, then the main candidate and his technologists had to “turn on” the administrative resource again to collect signatures of deputies. At the same time, deputies from United Russia were brutally forced to sign for the third time (!) often for candidates from other parties, which caused great indignation, but party discipline left no chance for resistance.
TASS, August 14. Experts from the Committee of Civil Initiatives (KGI), which is headed by ex-Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Alexei Kudrin, believe that the municipal filter in the elections of regional heads reduces their competitiveness and practically eliminates the possibility of holding a truly alternative campaign. Such conclusions are contained in a report on the results of the nomination and registration of candidates for the gubernatorial elections, which TASS reviewed.
The municipal filter was established by law in 2012, when direct elections of governors were returned. It obliges all candidates for the post of head of the region to collect a certain number of signatures of municipal deputies and heads of municipalities in order to be registered in the elections. The filter threshold varies in regions from 5% to 10% of total number municipalities.
Higher officials are chosen this year on the Single Voting Day on September 10 in 16 regions: Buryatia, Karelia, Mari El, Mordovia, Udmurtia, Perm Territory, Belgorod, Kaliningrad, Kirov, Novgorod, Ryazan, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, Yaroslavl regions and Sevastopol. In all regions except Kirov region, candidates can only be nominated by parties; in the Kirov region, self-nomination is allowed by law.
The authors of the report - KGI experts Alexander Kynev, Arkady Lyubarev and Andrey Maksimov - came to the conclusion that this year's gubernatorial campaign shows the reproduction of the main trends that have been dominant since 2012, "which is due to the unchanged basic institutional conditions."
Earlier, the head of the Central Electoral Commission, Ella Pamfilova, reported that out of 105 nominated candidates for governor, 75 were registered. According to the Committee for State Elections, 82 candidates submitted documents for registration to the election commission, seven were refused. Pamfilova reported that they submitted a deliberately insufficient number of signatures to the election commissions, and only two applicants - communist, member of the Federation Council Vyacheslav Markhaev in Buryatia and Oleg Kharaskin, nominated in the Perm Territory from the Great Fatherland party - were rejected due to double signatures, although the number of autographs was initially sufficient.
The filter limits competition
KGI experts note that the average competition in gubernatorial elections in 2012-2016 is 4.7 people per seat, which is lower than in 2004-2005, that is, before the abolition of direct elections of regional heads, when the competition was seven people per seat.
“The preservation of the municipal filter causes a serious restriction of competition in gubernatorial elections. The mechanism of the so-called municipal filter in its current form, coupled with the absence in most regions of the right to self-nomination, actually makes it impossible to hold truly alternative elections in the vast majority of cases,” the report says.
Exceptions, according to the authors of the study, are possible only in cases “when, for one reason or another, the regional administration is forced to informally agree to allow the governor’s real opponent to participate in the elections.” This, the report explains, may be an act of goodwill, the result of informal influence from the federal center, or simply an underestimation of the opponent’s capabilities. The authors claim that in no region since the introduction of the municipal filter, not a single opposition party (except for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in some regions) has included in its composition the number of municipal deputies and heads of municipalities elected by the population necessary to overcome the filter. Among the signatures of deputies in support of almost all gubernatorial candidates registered in 2012-2016, there were signatures of United Russia members in varying quantities, the document says.
“In our opinion, an institution that can function normally only with informal schemes that allow it to be circumvented is politically unsuitable and destroys the legal culture as such,” KGI experts emphasize.
According to them, many potential candidates with high level fame and extensive electoral experience do not actually participate in the electoral process. At the same time, “many registered candidates, who supposedly independently and successfully overcame the municipal filter, in reality turn out to be electorally insolvent and collect an extremely small percentage of votes in the elections.” From this, KGI experts conclude that “in its current form, the municipal filter does not protect elections from fake candidates, but leads to the fact that regional elites often promote the registration of only conditional and inconspicuous opponents of the current heads instead of real competitors.”
Parties limit themselves
This situation may further contribute to the refusal of a significant part of voters to participate in elections, according to KGI experts. They recall that in almost all cases the turnout in gubernatorial elections is lower than in similar elections in 1990-2000, which were not combined with federal campaigns. In addition to refusing to vote, protest-minded voters can vote for “technical” or simply electorally weak opponents of current leaders, the authors write. “Such behavior can lead to improved results even for unpromising and, in reality, unready opposition candidates to govern, allowing them to achieve levels of formal support that are impossible in conditions of higher political competition,” the study emphasizes.
In addition, the municipal filter technology leads to the fact that many candidates with serious electoral chances refuse to participate in the elections in advance, without even going through the formal nomination procedures, experts believe.
This may be a consequence of the formation of pre-election coalitions, agreements to nominate a potential competitor as a member of the Federation Council or for other positions, or even as a result of forceful pressure on a party or candidate, a business associated with him, or his relatives.
For example, Yabloko refused to nominate a candidate for the elections of the head of Karelia, although in the republic the party has a faction in the legislative assembly; the party representative Galina Shirshina was the mayor of Petrozavodsk. In Mari El, she refused to nominate a candidate for the post of head of the region of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, although in the 2015 elections its candidate Sergei Mamaev took second place.
"Thus, we are observing actual self-restraint of key opposition political parties in nominating real candidates for the positions of regional heads. Lacking their own resources to overcome the municipal filter, parties become even more dependent on the regional power machine and try to nominate only candidates for whose registration they can obtain the signatures of municipal deputies loyal to the authorities,” the authors of the report emphasize.
Discussion about the municipal filter
CEC Chairman Ella Pamfilova previously spoke in favor of softening the municipal filter by lowering its threshold to 5% or allowing deputies to sign for several gubernatorial candidates.
In her opinion, the goal that was set when this norm was introduced in 2012, namely: the development of political parties at the municipal level, “gently encouraging them to participate in local elections", has not been achieved everywhere. As a result, the CEC chairwoman stated, "many political parties remember the need to work at the local level only at the moment when a major election campaign begins, for example, for the election of governor." She believes that "it is necessary consider all the pros and cons [of the filter], understand what to do next so that Russia’s political system develops and there is competition.”
Pamfilova said that, in agreement with the First Deputy Head of the Russian Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko, she will gather experts and party representatives in September to discuss options for changing this legislative norm. The issue of the municipal filter, according to her, will subsequently be considered at working group under the presidential administration to improve election legislation.
Leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation have repeatedly spoken out for the abolition or adjustment of the municipal filter, " Fair Russia", LDPR. Vice-Speaker of the State Duma, head of the United Russia faction Vladimir Vasiliev expressed confidence that all factions of the State Duma will come to a consolidated decision to change the legislative norm on the municipal filter.
Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko spoke out against the complete abolition of the municipal filter. According to her, the filter was introduced to prevent random people from participating in the elections.
No sooner have Russians recovered from the presidential election than many will face another election campaign in September. On a single voting day, September 9, 2018, elections of heads of 21 constituent entities of the Federation and elections of deputies to regional parliaments will be held.
Of the 21 regions, only in three cases will voting be carried out through parliament, and not through the direct expression of the will of voters. These are the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the Republic of Dagestan and the Republic of Ingushetia. In the remaining 18 subjects of the Federation, candidates for the position of heads of subjects will have to prove to voters why they are worthy to lead the region.
However, before becoming a registered candidate, all applicants for a high-ranking post, without exception, must enlist the support of municipal deputies and go through the so-called municipal filter.
Opposition politicians - both systemic and non-systemic - consider the filter a barrier to democratic elections. They are confident that in this way the authorities cut off candidates they do not like already on the approach to the election campaign and deal with their political opponents. No one except the candidate from the same government has a chance to overcome this barrier without the help of government representatives.
Photo: © GLOBAL LOOK press/Russian Government Press Office
The municipal filter was introduced in 2012, immediately after the return of direct elections of regional heads under President Dmitry Medvedev. Since 2005, after the tragedy in Beslan, governors, on the initiative of Vladimir Putin, were approved by the decision of local legislative assemblies at the proposal of the president. In this way, the problem of strengthening the vertical of power, which was going through difficult times, was solved.
Having strengthened the vertical, in 2011 the authorities faced another problem: mass protests by the opposition, which demanded the democratization of life in the country. The return of direct elections of governors was one of a number of steps taken by the authorities towards the demands of the protesters. However, as it turned out later, this was a half-hearted step.
“Overestimating the prospects of the protest movement and the prospects of possible destabilization of the political system, the authorities were forced to make concessions. With the registration of parties, with the return of supposedly direct elections of governors and everything else,” says Pavel Salin, director of the Center for Political Science Research at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. - But on the other hand, she gave these measures an imitation character. De jure, parties received a simplified registration procedure, but de facto they registered only those they wanted. This notorious municipal filter was introduced for governors. Initially, this was done in order to prevent undesirable elements from participating in election campaigns at any level. They thought this was the way to a color script."
Shevchenko and six communists. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Left Front are preparing to push Sobyanin in the Moscow mayoral elections
Sergei Udaltsov told Storm about the ambitions of the left, relations with Yashin and Navalny, as well as interaction with liberals April 18, 2018Having returned to Russians the right to choose their own governors and mayors, officials decided to play it safe - they introduced a municipal filter. This procedure is a collection of signatures from municipal deputies in support of candidates for the positions of regional heads.
The Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Research was an organization that analyzed and worked on the mechanisms for the introduction and operation of the municipal filter since its introduction. According to ISEPI experts, the filter fulfilled its political objectives.
Unlike elections at other levels, gubernatorial campaigns avoided dirty political techniques; there were no double governors, that is, candidates with the same last name as the strong candidate. The introduction of the filter, according to ISEPI, ensured the transparency and purity of the elections of regional heads.
The second purpose of introducing the municipal filter is to orient parliamentary parties to active work at the local level. The creators of the filter meant that parties should work not only during federal and regional campaigns, but also, as they say, on the ground. This was done so that the reform, which simplified the creation of political parties, did not lead to the emergence of a large number of fictitious parties. According to ISEPI, they also managed to cope with this task, albeit with varying degrees of success.
ISEPI Research Director Alexander Pozhalov told Storm, What The filter also played a controversial role in the process of nominating opposition candidates. In particular, municipal deputies from United Russia had to sign for nominees from opposition parliamentary parties who lacked their signatures. Otherwise, the opposition threatened to boycott the elections and, accordingly, not recognize their legitimacy.
The expert also acknowledges another problem with the filter - pressure from regional administrations on local deputies in order to limit competition in elections and create a structure for a controlled election campaign on their territory.
“Unfortunately, in its original design, the filter allowed such measures to limit competition. It is no coincidence that all these years, following the results of each voting day, there have been discussions among experts and in parliamentary opposition parties about the need to make adjustments to the practice of the municipal filter,” says Alexander Pozhalov.
Initially, officials said that the filter was necessary so that all sorts of crooks, swindlers and criminal elements would not come into power - only distinguished politicians who were known and respected by municipal deputies. However, as it turned out later, this step was aimed at combating opposition representatives participating in the elections. They practically lost the chance to be registered without approval from the authorities.
Each subject of Russia sets its own standards for the signatures required for nomination - from 5 to 10% of the total number of local parliamentarians, who represent at least 75% of the total number of municipalities in the region.
The easiest way to explain the situation with passing the municipal filter is using the example of the elections for the mayor of Moscow, where the filter is 6% of the signatures of deputies from 3/4 of the municipalities.
Image: © Daily Storm In total, the capital has 125 districts and 21 municipalities (the territory of New Moscow). A total of 146 municipal districts. Any candidate running in city elections must obtain at least 109 signatures in support from at least 109 municipalities in the city. Self-nominated candidates, in addition to the signatures of municipalities, need to collect about 72 thousand 160 signatures of citizens (1% of the number of registered voters in Moscow as of January 1, 2018).
According to the results of elections to municipal councils - 2017, which took place in 124 districts of old Moscow and in the Troitsk urban district, United Russia received a blocking number of municipal deputies - 1,153 mandates ended up in the hands of the party in power; United Russia received another seven deputies a year earlier in the elections to Shchukinsky Municipal Council.
Despite the small victory of the democratic opposition, which managed to significantly increase its municipal potential in Moscow, it will not be able to nominate its candidate without the help of deputies from United Russia. Yabloko has 176 municipal deputies, another 108 mandates were received by self-nominated candidates, five more deputies were received by the Growth Party, and PARNAS has two parliamentarians.
The situation is the same with candidates from parliamentary parties, who will not be able to outside help nominate your man. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation managed to defend 44 mandates (versus 159 in the previous elections), the Socialist Revolutionaries - 10 (versus 114) and four seats went to the LDPR.
Moreover, even if opposition deputies from different flanks merge in a single ecstasy and try to push through one single candidate as a counterweight to Sobyanin, they will still not succeed. In 55 of the 126 districts of Moscow there is not a single deputy from the opposition, and in another 41 there is an overwhelming majority behind United Russia.
Image: © Daily Storm And a similar picture is observed in all regions of our country. To run for governor or mayor, oppositionists have to enlist the support of the authorities. In fact, only those protest candidates who are approved by local administrations go to the polls. If an opposition candidate poses any threat to a representative of the party in power, then he is cut off by the municipal filter.
“For the authorities, the filter has demonstrated its absolute effectiveness,- Pavel Salin, director of the Center for Political Science Research at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, is convinced. - When the authorities needed to demonstrate competition, as in the last elections for the mayor of Moscow, then, on instructions from above, United Russia helped Navalny pass the municipal filter. When it is not necessary, candidates are cut off. This is a fairly effective tool for modeling the electoral process and political landscape at the regional level.”
In 2017, the two most high-profile cases in regional elections concerned Buryatia and Sverdlovsk region. Two strong regional politicians failed to become candidates for governor: communist senator Vyacheslav Markhaev and Yekaterinburg mayor Yevgeny Roizman.
The leader of the communists of Buryatia, Markhaev, who posed a real threat to the government candidate, was denied registration due to the so-called double signatures. The filter assumes that one deputy cannot sign for two candidates, only for one. By the way, this amendment was proposed by President Dmitry Medvedev at the discussion stage of the bill on the municipal filter in 2012.
And Roizman, beloved by Sverdlovsk residents, did not manage to collect required quantity signatures. United Russia deputies did not help the protest mayor participate in the elections of the head of the region. Of the 126 signatures required to participate in the elections, only 39 were submitted for the nomination of Yevgeny Roizman.
“It’s not about Yashin.” Why Navalny doesn’t want to see Dmitry Gudkov as a single opposition candidate in the Moscow mayoral elections
Unfulfilled ambitions of protest politicians lead to the destruction of a single democratic team April 13, 2018The municipal filter has been repeatedly criticized by both the opposition and the expert community. Factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia in the State Duma introduced bills to completely eliminate it or weaken it for parliamentary parties. The head of the Central Election Commission, Ella Pamfilova, also spoke out for its abolition.
The main complaints about the municipal filter can be summed up in one phrase: it kills competition. In this way, the authorities prevent the registration of strong regional politicians and only let in those they please - weak opponents.
The Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Research, which has been dealing with the problems of the municipal filter all these years, believes that the question of completely abolishing the filter at the moment not worth it. As well as the abolition of the filter, at least for the parliamentary opposition. This will limit party competition and put parties that are absent from the State Duma, but deserved ones, in unequal conditions. However, ISEPI Research Director Alexander Pozhalov believes that it makes sense to reform the municipal filter in three areas.
"First. Automatic recognition of the fact of passing the municipal filter for parties that have fulfilled the municipal standard in local elections. The second is a departure from the strict rule: “One deputy - one signature” while simultaneously increasing transparency and control by the opposition over the process of collecting signatures of deputies. And thirdly, softening the geographical significance of the municipal filter, suggests Pozhalov. If this strict norm is adjusted at least to the signatures of deputies from half of the districts, and not 3/4, as now, then it will be much more difficult for the administration at the regional level to limit its competitors in collecting signatures in the right amount» .
Screenshot: Andrey Kolyadin © Daily Storm However, not everyone in the expert community agrees with such filter reform. In a conversation with Storm, a political strategist, head of the regional policy department of the Russian Presidential Administration for domestic policy in 2009-2012, Andrei Kolyadin reported that the municipal filter as such has outlived its usefulness, but still continues to suit the authorities.
“The fear that people will come up with something and choose the wrong person, it is present and does not go away. Although, I think that the authorities need to fight this fear,” he believes.
Using a candidate filtering system, the government adjusts and controls the number and composition of candidates for the post of regional heads, says Kolyadin. The filter itself is necessary to get rid of those politicians who pose or may pose a potential threat to their candidate.
“Not a single person who is not approved by the authorities is able to pass the municipal filter. This is a 100% guarantee that anyone can be stopped. Even in the conditions of Sevastopol, where it was necessary to collect only 12 signatures of deputies [for nomination in the elections of the city governor in 2017] , it turned out to be very difficult to implement,”- said Kolyadin.
The political strategist is confident that the municipal filter system has exhausted its usefulness, however, “Unfortunately, the authorities do not understand this.”
“The fact is that the main thing for them is maintaining control over those people who become mayors and governors. But there is something that is beginning to seriously affect the authorities today - this is the social responsibility of the population and the authorities themselves,” he says. - That is, if the population did not vote this person or for some reason believes that he was not elected, since the filter removed candidates for whom people could vote, then the population is not responsible for the actions that the authorities carry out in this territory.”
Andrei Kolyadin believes that by pursuing a policy of filtering opposition candidates, the authorities are forcing the population to automatically place all responsibility on the regional leadership. In particular, he asks the question: “Does the same Vorobyov have anything to do with the fact that gas broke out at landfills for solids? household waste? No. Landfills have their own owners, this is a problem at the federal level, it exists in all regions. But given that the people do not associate themselves with the governor, he believes that “you are to blame and therefore the snowball is on you.”
The abolition of the municipal filter and the holding of direct, fair and competitive elections assumes that the people who elect their representatives to public office bear joint responsibility with them for the problems and events that occur in a particular region.
“If something terrible happens, the authorities can always say: “Friends, you yourself elected him! We can help you, we can remove this person, but then you must choose someone else.”. Here the federal government becomes a regulator, an arbiter, and not a participant in those events. And the president is not a participant in those events, but he receives two million 600 thousand votes on a straight line: repair the road, paint the door, pay the salary. From this point of view, the filter is an outdated procedure,-explains former employee presidential administration. - Democracy is not only democracy, but also best mechanism protecting the rich from the poor. Without fully calculating the consequences, the authorities make the mistake of not canceling the municipal filter. Moreover, in all cases, it seems to me that no one is threatening Sobyanin. Nobody is able to compete with him. Yes, he will score not 70%, but more than 50%, and this is enough to win in normal competition.”
Despite the common understanding of the opposition that the municipal filter should be abolished, a unified understanding in this regard has not yet been formed in the authorities. Apparently, in this political season, the opposition is unlikely to wait for the municipal filter to be abolished and they will again have to turn to the party in power for the votes of deputies. Well, the authorities, as, in their opinion, are supposed to, will decide who is allowed to vote and who is not.
“Vladimir Putin’s super-result - both in turnout and in the final result - demonstrated that the authorities have support, so talk about abolishing the filter died down. But even if the authorities cancel the municipal filter, they will come up with another one. They absolutely do not intend to give up control and return to the 90s,” political scientist Pavel Salin is convinced.
On Thursday, July 12, the Moscow City Election Commission announced the final list of candidates for the post of mayor of Moscow. It includes the current head of the city Sergei Sobyanin (running as a self-nominated candidate), Ilya Sviridov (A Just Russia), Mikhail Degtyarev (LDPR), Vadim Kumin (Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Their names will be on the ballot for the September 9 elections. As a result, only four out of 32 who tried to register were allowed to participate in the elections, and among them there was not a single candidate from the non-parliamentary opposition. The reason is the insufficient number of signatures of municipal deputies that needed to be collected for registration. It turned out that the municipal filter, which was originally intended as a tool for developing political competition, in fact simply killed it, according to experts interviewed by DW.
Who invented the municipal filter
When it comes to a municipal filter, the term “so-called” is often added to it. All because in federal law In fact, there is no mention of any filter on the principles for electing regional heads. This is a conventional name for the procedure for registering candidates based on the signatures of municipal deputies, which was quickly picked up by journalists and experts.
In 2012, the idea of weeding out candidates in the elections of regional heads (these include governors, presidents of republics, and - separately - the post of mayor of Moscow) was proposed by the mayor of Samara Dmitry Azarov (now he is the interim head Samara region).
He was supported by several other regional heads, as well as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The latter introduced a bill on changes in the elections of governors to the State Duma. “After the terrorist attack in Beslan in 2004, direct elections of governors were abolished in Russia: they were appointed directly from Moscow. The municipal filter became part of liberal measures after the protests on Bolotnaya. At the same time, the conditions for registering political parties were relaxed,” explains the political scientist, expert of the Committee of Civil Initiatives Dmitry Sosnin. “The authorities were looking for a mechanism to, on the one hand, return elections, and, on the other, so that they could continue to cut off the candidates who are most inconvenient for them.”
United Russia deputies decide everything
For the first time, the work of the municipal filter could be observed at the gubernatorial elections on October 14, 2012 in five Russian regions at once. So that the candidate can get into ballot, he needed to satisfy several filter conditions. First, collect from five to ten percent of the signatures of municipal deputies of the region (the percentage depends on the decision of local legislators).
Secondly, these signatures must be in at least three quarters of municipalities. For example, to election commission If a politician is allowed to participate in the elections in Moscow, he must show at least 110 notarized deputy signatures. One signature - one district.
Considering that the majority of deputies in municipalities are members of United Russia, and this, according to experts, is the main absurdity of the municipal filter. In any region, candidates are forced to resort to registration with the help of the party in power.
“Both United Russia deputies, who must cast votes for their ideological opponents, and the opposition candidates themselves, whom their voters are beginning to distrust, are placed in an uncomfortable situation,” explains Dmitry Sosnin. Thus, in the Moscow mayoral elections in 2013, Alexei Navalny would not have passed the municipal filter without the signatures of deputies from United Russia.
Why the municipal filter is criticized
Criticism about the municipal filter began even before the adoption of the presidential bill. The LDPR and the A Just Russia party were against it; Alexei Kudrin and the head of the Central Election Commission (CEC) Ella Pamfilova spoke about its abolition. She came out in favor of developing a legal norm that would not abuse administrative resources “to remove undesirable or most real opponents in elections.”
"When the municipal filter was introduced, we were told a lot beautiful words that he will contribute to the development of political parties at the grassroots level,” recalls Grigory Melkonyants, co-chairman of the Golos association.
Context
But, according to him, over all these years the filter has shown itself only from the worst side: it rejected political system ago, mothballed it in the regions and did not allow initiatives from below to develop. And the party in power turned out to be the most active participant in the lower municipal elections, pushing aside other candidates.
The fact that the instrument that was supposed to increase political competition in elections actually reduced it is confirmed by data from the Committee of Civil Initiatives. In 2004-2005, before the introduction of the filter, the average number of candidates in gubernatorial elections was seven. From 2012 to 2016 - only 4.7.
What can replace this mechanism?
According to Melkonyants, the filter should be completely abolished and replaced with other procedures: collecting signatures or a poll tax. The latter operated in the nineties, when a candidate could contribute the required amount, which would be returned to him if he received the required minimum votes. For party candidates, the collection of signatures should be completely abolished, because they have already proven that they have the support of voters.
“Signatures will allow candidates to demonstrate some kind of support from the population, and the tax will insure against biased verification, as traditionally happens in election commissions with undesirable candidates,” Melkonyants concluded.
See also:
-
Start from the Mayakovsky monument
The action began at about 14:00 Moscow time. Most protesters chose Triumfalnaya Square in Moscow as their starting point.
"Voter strike" in Moscow: how it happened
The most popular point is at Pushkin
According to the tradition that had already developed during the latest protest events, many gathered in the square near the monument to Pushkin.
"Voter strike" in Moscow: how it happened
Numerous posters with protest slogans
Despite the fact that the action was not agreed upon, many prepared in advance. Most often, the posters were written about the lack of choice and that citizens do not consider these elections legitimate.
"Voter strike" in Moscow: how it happened
Thousands of outraged citizens
The entire square in front of the Pushkin monument and the Izvestia building was filled with people. The police did not prevent anyone from leaving the subway. In total, several thousand people demonstrated in Moscow, according to journalists.
"Voter strike" in Moscow: how it happened
Balloons
Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation offered to download poster layouts from its website, which many of the protesters took advantage of. Some of the protesters also came out to protest with balloons with the letter "N".
"Voter strike" in Moscow: how it happened
Not only youth
Among the protesters were many young people and minors, but also many elderly people.
The lives of Muscovites directly depend on how competitive the mayoral elections on September 9 will be. Opponents of the current mayor of the capital, before competing for the sympathy of the voter, will have to defend the very right to participate in elections - to pass the municipal filter. The dominance of deputies from United Russia in most municipalities makes this task difficult, but surmountable, candidates from the left-patriotic opposition are confident.
The editors of the Free Press received an appeal to independent municipal deputies of Moscow from candidates for the post of mayor of the capital Vadim Kumin(running from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) and Ilya Sviridov(comes from A Just Russia). Both politicians call for joining forces to create real competition in the elections of the capital's mayor. Including in overcoming the municipal filter.
Let us remember that the municipal filter was introduced in 2012 simultaneously with the return of direct elections of governors. To participate in the elections, candidates for the post of head of the region must obtain the support of 5-10% of local deputies. At the same time, deputies must represent the majority of the total number of municipalities of a particular subject of the federation. In Moscow, it is necessary to collect at least 110 signatures of deputies from 110 municipal districts.
In conditions when United Russia has virtually unlimited administrative resource, the lion's share of local deputies are elected from the party in power. By controlling the majority of mandates, United Russia members, by their decision, can allow or not allow one or another candidate to vote. And as five years of practice have shown, they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. Thus, the municipal filter serves as a real barrier for all political forces except the party in power.
The authors of the appeal note that the three candidates from the non-systemic opposition - Ilya Yashin, Dmitry Gudkov and a candidate from Yabloko needs only three signatures to pass the municipal filter in municipalities dominated by independent deputies. While the remaining signatures will remain unclaimed and will actually disappear as a resource for passing the municipal filter. Therefore, representatives of the opposition are invited to meet and agree on the exchange of “extra” signatures, thus strengthening each other’s positions.
“It is possible to bypass the strict framework of federal legislation and ensure real competition in the elections for the mayor of Moscow only by combining efforts and capabilities,” the candidates from the left-patriotic opposition emphasized.
For comment, “SP” turned to one of the authors of the appeal - candidate for the post of mayor of Moscow from the Communist Party of the Russian FederationVadim Kumin.
This is the usual cold-blooded political calculation. Judge for yourself, if independent deputies sign three signatures but not the fourth, then it simply disappears. Who will it stay for? Not clear.
“SP”: - What are you, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, ready to offer, how many signatures?
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation has 25 conditionally extra signatures. These are the municipalities where we have more than one deputy. We take one mandate for ourselves, one signature, as required by law, and we can give the rest to the right-wing forces, where they do not have deputies. And, accordingly, we want to get their signatures from places where we do not have deputies.
“SP”: - How many free signatures do they have?
The right-wing forces have more signatures. Therefore, you just need to exchange signatures. This will significantly bring the goal closer to achieving 110 mandates in 110 districts. After all, if you get 130 or 150 signatures, but don’t get 110 districts, they can be thrown out.
“SP”: - Sounds reasonable...
You must first exchange with each other in order to get as close as possible to the required level, and then collect the remaining signatures using different methods. Because going to ask United Russia without first agreeing with each other looks strange, to say the least, and doesn’t fit into any corners. Since there is such a law, we must move in this way.
“SP”: - Is there any reaction to your appeal?
We have just released our appeal. Today is a day off, and starting on Monday we will work. We hope to reach all agreements within a few days, since this should be completed next week. There is no particular problem here - you just need to gather in one place, sit down and agree. This is a technical point.
“SP”: - What if it doesn’t work out?
Without this step, we are all playing into the hands of United Russia. Therefore, together with Ilya Sviridov from A Just Russia, we came to the conclusion that this is beneficial to everyone. We hope that common sense will prevail, regardless of any political differences. The main thing is to overcome the filter.
SP spoke about how feasible the idea of exchanging signatures of municipal deputies is political scientist Alexey Makarkin.
No party other than United Russia has enough signatures to independently overcome the municipal filter. If the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and A Just Russia had deputies in the vast majority of assemblies, and in some even two, then it would be understandable. But the problem is that in many municipalities there are no communist representatives at all, and representatives of A Just Russia O Greatest rarity. That is, they themselves do not have enough signatures, and they still want to give them to another opposition.
“SP”: - But they do not claim that they will collect all 110 required signatures in this way. We are talking about strengthening our positions before negotiations with United Russia...
They will probably be forced to raise money with the help of United Russia. There is no other way. But there are two problems here. First - how will United Russia look at the fact that it will give part of the signatures to Kumin and Sviridov, and they, in turn, will give part of their signatures to representatives of political forces with which United Russia is not going to share?
And the second, even more important, problem... Signatures are put not by robots, but by real people, deputies. The question arises: will the deputy agree to hand over his signature? After all, many communist deputies have a very negative attitude towards democrats. There are both historical claims from the 1990s and modern ones - that it was these democratic deputies that ousted the communists from the councils in the 2017 elections. Would a communist who finally made it into the municipal assembly want to sign for a democratic candidate? Among these people there are many very ideological people. It is extremely difficult for them to sign for Gudkov or Yashin. Especially after 2014, after Crimea, etc.
“SP”: - But the communists are famous for their party discipline. If it's good for their party, why not?
There is also the issue of trust within the democratic community. We see how difficult the process of nominating a candidate from Yabloko is going; there are disagreements between Gudkov and Yashin.
“SP”: - Nevertheless, there are precedents for dividing multi-member districts...
Yes, but time has passed since then, and we see that in these councils either it is not possible to elect a chairman, or they were elected, but conflicts began. In addition, the Democrats are now split not even into two, but into three parts. “Yabloko” will collect signatures while it is unclear for whom, or for Mitrokhina, or for Rusakova, Gudkov will collect, Yashin will collect...
