parties running for Parliament.

limitations of rights and freedoms of

citizens,” including the postponing of

elections. This particular scenario is

considered probable by some experts. In

a TV phone-in in late October, Putin

ruled out a third term but hinted at some

form of political involvement.

What may be a lot more interesting is

what will happen during the elections

just four months prior to the presidential

race. Elections for the State Duma — the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament

— will take place in December 2007. For the last 15 years, Duma elections have been a reflection of the political palette of Russia.

The previous elections for the State Duma took place in December 2003, also less than four months prior to the presidential race. The main result was the victory of a pro-government party called United Russia, which received roughly 37 per cent of all votes, which, added to its wins in many single-member electoral districts, gave the party more than 220 seats out of 450.

In the years that followed, United Russia’s caucus in Parliament was replenished by new members, both independent deputies and members of other factions who crossed the floor. Eventually, a pro-government “Constitutional majority” of 300 votes was formed in Parliament.

It is this majority that has so significantly changed the legislation on elections that it would be fair to consider it a fundamentally different system of elections that will be tested in December 2007.

So, what are those changes?

• Abolition of the so-called “proportional scheme.”

Under this scheme, 50 per cent of the seats in Parliament were ceded to candidates elected from party lists, while the other 50 per cent went to deputies competing for a single seat in their electoral districts, allowing representatives of opposition parties to win seats in the Duma. The two largest right-wing opposition parties, Yabloko and Soyuz Pravykh Sil or SPS (Union of Right Forces) — it just so happens in Russia that the right wing is represented by liberals — failed to win more than five per cent of the vote, the minimum threshold for representation in the current Duma. However, some of their members won seats in the Duma thanks to single-seat races in their constituencies. Afterwards, several of them joined the United Russia caucus while others remained independent.

The elections of 2007 will be based solely on party lists. All 450 seats of the Duma will go to candidates chosen by proportional representation from the lists country. When deputies were adopting these standards and voting

Political Parties, their rationale was that traditionally

in Russia “caliphs for an hour” would emerge right

before elections, i.e. small formations with doubtful

reputation and questionable financing. At this point, it

is not known how many parties will take part in the

elections. The Central Elections Commission of the

Russian Federation (the body responsible for conduct

of elections) assumes there will be between seven and

ten parties.

The main parties are United Russia, which holds a centre-right position, the Communist Party, and the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), which occupies the niche of conservative and marginal electorates. A liberal coalition is also possible, as well as the participation of the recently formed second progovernment coalition on the left side of the political spectrum, made up of three parties: Motherland, the Party of Life, and the Party of Pensioners. One of the leaders of United Russia, Boris Gryzlov, is the Speaker of the lower chamber of Parliament while one of the new coalition leaders, Sergey Mironov, is the Speaker of the upper chamber of Parliament.

• Raising the threshold for political party representation in Parliament from five per cent to seven per cent of the vote. This move is perceived to significantly lower the chances of the liberals — SPS and Yabloko — to win seats in Parliament. The public associates the liberals with the painful reforms of the 1990s, which is why they do not have vast popular support; the Kremlin does not like the liberals much either, so they cannot count on its administrative resources, such as appearances of their leaders on TV or at meetings with the President.

After the last elections, the liberal parties’ share of the vote did not even meet the five per cent threshold for representation in Parliament. When representatives of pro-government parties voted in favour of raising the bar in upcoming elections, their reasoning was that the new barrier would encourage creation of several large parties instead of hundreds of small ones that voters do not recognize.

With the introduction of the new threshold for representation, officials are making projections about the representation of four, or at most five, parties in a new Parliament. The frontrunner is United Russia, followed by LDPR, the Communists, and members of the new coalition of Motherland and the Party of Life.

• Deletion of the “none of the above” line on the ballot. When deputies were passing this amendment they referred to European preference for avoiding such a line on the ballot. Their opponents argued that by checking a box in the “none of the above” line, voters were expressing their attitude towards elections and parties. It is true — Russians even coined a new phrase, “the elections were won by candidate ‘none of the above’”. In some regional and municipal elections, candidate “none of the above” has secured as much as 20 to 30 per cent of the vote, a lot more than any “living” candidate or party.

• Observers at polling stations. From now on voting and vote counts will be overseen exclusively by observers who represent registered candidates; i.e., in the context of parliamentary elections, observers will represent only the parties that are running. International observers can be invited by the President, the federal government, the Central Elections Commission or the Chambers of Parliament.

A law on “extremism”

It is likely that deputies will decide to adopt more amendments to the election legislation. For instance, last summer new amendments to the law on extremism were actively discussed. The final definition of extremism was so blurry that it could imply virtually any pre-election activities. “Extremism” could be interpreted as calls for discord, obstructing the activities of government bodies, slander and so on. In practice this would mean that any party could be removed from the race and the administration could exert serious pressure on mass media and even have them closed by interpreting any criticism as slander. The bill became the subject of animated discussions at large and in the media. As a result it was partially softened. However, even deputies and senators themselves admit that the term “extremism” requires further clarification.

Forum of Federations

Shifting electoral laws benefit Putin

2006, fifty-three per cent of respondents to a survey by the Levada Centre said they were sure that the number of fascists in Russia had gone up (47 per cent shared this opinion in August 2004, and 37 per cent in October 2005). At the same time, 34 per cent agreed that “people of non-Russian nationalities are to blame for many misfortunes in Russia” (58 per cent disagreed with this statement).

It will not be surprising if these attitudes are reflected during the elections in the form of an unusually high percentage of votes in favour of certain parties, or large numbers of spoiled ballots or low voter turnouts.

This does not mean that such actions will ruin the elections. But parliamentary elections do “lay the groundwork” for the next political cycle and they do reveal social attitudes. If the attitudes of the public do not turn out as positively as many politicians or official spin doctors want them to, they will create a heavy burden for both the next Parliament and for the next President, whoever that will be. And if the October 8 elections are any indication, changes in the federal government — and changes made by it — will have significant effects on Russia’s 89 regions.