On Thursday, July 12, the Moscow City Electoral Committee announced the final list of candidates for the post of mayor of Moscow. It included the current head of the city, Sergei Sobyanin (running as an independent candidate), Ilya Sviridov (Fair Russia), Mikhail Degtyarev (LDPR), Vadim Kumin (KPRF). Their names will be on the ballots in the September 9 elections. As a result, only four out of 32 who tried to register were admitted to the elections, and among them there is not a single candidate from the non-parliamentary opposition. The reason is the insufficient number of signatures of municipal deputies that had to be collected for registration. It turned out that the municipal filter, which was originally conceived as a tool for the development of political competition, in fact, simply killed it, according to experts interviewed by DW.
Who invented the municipal filter
When it comes to the municipal filter, the term "so-called" is often added to it. This is because the federal law on the principles for electing heads of regions, in fact, does not mention any filter. This is a conditional 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 to weed out candidates for the elections of heads of regions (these are governors, and presidents of the republics, and - separately - the post of mayor of Moscow) was proposed by the mayor of Samara Dmitry Azarov (now he is the interim head of the Samara region).
He was supported by several other heads of regions, 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 canceled in Russia: they were appointed directly from Moscow. The municipal filter became part of the liberal measures after the protests on Bolotnaya. Dmitry Sosnin - The authorities were looking for a mechanism to, on the one hand, return the elections, and, on the other hand, so that they could continue to cut off the most inconvenient candidates for them.
Deputies of "United Russia" decide everything
For the first time, the work of the municipal filter could be observed during the gubernatorial elections on October 14, 2012 in five Russian regions at once. In order for a candidate to get on the ballot, he had to fulfill several filter conditions. First, to collect from five to ten percent of the signatures of the 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 the municipalities. For example, in order for the election commission to admit a politician to 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 United Russia members, 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 ruling party.
"The United Russia deputies who have to vote for their ideological opponents, as well as the opposition candidates themselves, who are beginning to be mistrusted by their voters, are put in an uncomfortable situation," Dmitry Sosnin explains. So, in the elections of the mayor of Moscow in 2013, Alexei Navalny would not have passed the municipal filter without the signatures of deputies from United Russia.
What is the municipal filter criticized for?
Criticism about the municipal filter began even before the passage of the presidential bill. The LDPR and the Just Russia party were against it, Alexei Kudrin and the head of the Central Election Commission (CEC) Ella Pamfilova spoke about its cancellation. She advocated working out a legal norm that would not abuse the administrative resource "to remove objectionable or most real opponents in the elections."
“When the municipal filter was introduced, we were told a lot of beautiful words that it would 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 threw the political system back, mothballed it in the regions and did not allow initiatives from below to develop. And the ruling party turned out to be the most active participant in the grassroots municipal elections, pushing aside other candidates.
The fact that the tool, which was supposed to increase political competition in the elections, in fact even reduced it, is confirmed by the data of the Committee of Civil Initiatives. In 2004-2005, before the introduction of the filter, the average number of candidates in a gubernatorial election 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: collection of signatures or a selective tax. The latter acted in the nineties, when a candidate could contribute the necessary amount, which was returned to him if he gained the required minimum of votes. For party candidates, the collection of signatures should be abolished altogether, 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 is traditionally the case with objectionable candidates in election commissions," Melkonyants concluded.
See also:
-
Start from the monument to Mayakovsky
The action began at about 14:00 Moscow time. Most of the protesters chose Triumfalnaya Square in Moscow as their starting point.
"Voters' strike" in Moscow: how it was
The most massive point is at Pushkin
According to the tradition that has already developed during the recent protest events, many gathered on the square near the monument to Pushkin.
"Voters' strike" in Moscow: how it was
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 to be legitimate.
"Voters' strike" in Moscow: how it was
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 the exit from the subway. In total, in Moscow, according to journalists, several thousand people rallied.
"Voters' strike" in Moscow: how it was
Balloons
The Alexei Navalny Anti-Corruption Foundation offered to download layouts for posters from its website, which was used by many of the participants in the action. Some of the protesters also took to the protest with "H" balloons.
"Voters' strike" in Moscow: how it was
Not only youth
There were many young people and minors among the protesters, but also a lot of elderly people.
There are two barriers in today's electoral legislation in Russia. Formally, they are called upon to “check” the candidates for their “seriousness”, but in reality, in reality, they make it almost impossible for many political forces to participate.
A complete distortion of the meaning and essence that our president puts into the electoral system is achieved in 2017 using the following very ingenious scheme.
Consider this technology on the example of the Perm Territory, where the Great Fatherland Party of Oleg Alekseevich Kharaskin is located. The candidate is well-known in the region, he previously headed the Perm presidential office, an active patriot and a good business executive - the former Minister of Agriculture of the Kama region.
And now about how competitors are not allowed to register. Step by step.
Step one. To register for the election of the governor of the Perm Territory, a candidate must collect 245 signatures of 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, while the candidate can submit no more than 245. At the same time, at least 51 of them (maximum - 53) must belong to the heads and deputies of municipal districts (urban districts). In accordance with the current legislation, they must be collected in at least 36 municipalities of the Perm Territory.
Step two. And so the political technologists came up with the following manipulation. With the help of the administrative resource, the main contender for the governor's chair, who is also acting governor, collects not 245 votes of municipal deputies, but ten times more. Although there is a decision of the Constitutional Court that it is possible to collect only the required number of signatures for registration, plus another 5%.
Step three. Municipal deputies are being taken to the notaries in masses, taking 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 "stupid", then you are deeply mistaken. She is very graceful. The task is multi-level - first to collect the maximum votes. And in the process of this “gathering”, where the deputies are persuaded to sign for the main candidate from United Russia, they are ... fraudulently slipped another paper to sign. Not all, but very many. Approximately 1000 votes are being tricked here ... in favor of the spoiler candidate. In the Perm Territory, this is a candidate from the Patriots of Russia party. Like, put your signature also for the VRIO, but one more; another signature, “so that the elections take place”, while not explaining the essence of what is happening. Notaries, for the sake of the desire of the administration employees, violated the law “On Notaries” and did not explain for what or whom the deputy puts his signature.
Step five. All other candidates start collecting deputies' signatures. And then it turns out that there are practically no “free deputies” left. Despite this, our candidate O.A. Kharaskin is still gaining the required number of signatures of municipal deputies. Submit them to the Electoral 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". At the same time, none of these 4 deputies REMEMBER that he voted for him. Some of them are put under pressure to "remember".
Step seven. You, I hope, have already understood the essence of the new technology for cutting off dangerous competitors. You are taking all the deputies to sign for the main contender from United Russia, along the way, by deceit, 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 are handed over by a dangerous competitor, a couple of signatures, from those that were “received by fraud,” he will certainly have.
Step nine. At the same time, the visibility of the openness of the process is created. Or rather, its illusion. "United Russia" has nothing to do with it - they cut it off for the signatures of deputies, allegedly given to another party. At the same time, it does not 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 (KPRF, LDPR, SR), their candidates, who do not constitute real competition (in the Perm region) to the main candidate, receive from him part of the municipal votes “reserved” by him. When it turned out that all candidates from parliamentary parties could not pass the municipal filter, 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 coerced to sign for the third time (!) for candidates from other parties, which caused great indignation, but party discipline left no chance for resistance.
TASS, 14 August. Experts from the Committee for Civil Initiatives (CCI), headed by ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, believe that the municipal filter in the elections of heads of regions reduces their competitiveness and practically excludes 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 in the gubernatorial elections, which was reviewed by TASS.
The municipal filter was established by legislation in 2012, when direct elections of governors were returned. It obliges all candidates for the post of the 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 the regions from 5% to 10% of the total number of municipalities.
Senior officials are elected 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 in the Sevastopol. In all regions, except for the Kirov region, only parties can nominate candidates; 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 a reproduction of the main trends that have been dominant since 2012, "due to the unchanged basic institutional conditions."
Earlier, the head of the CEC, Ella Pamfilova, said that out of 105 nominated candidates for governors, 75 were registered. According to the CCI, 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 - a communist, member of the Federation Council Vyacheslav Markhaev in Buryatia and Oleg Kharaskin, nominated in the Perm Territory from the Great Fatherland Party - were refused because of double signatures, although the number of autographs was initially sufficient.
Filter limits competition
KGI experts note that the average competition in the 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 heads of regions, when the competition was seven people per seat.
"The preservation of the municipal filter causes a serious restriction of competition in the gubernatorial elections. The mechanism of the so-called municipal filter in its current form, combined with the lack of the right to self-nomination in most regions, actually makes it impossible to hold real alternative elections in the vast majority of cases," the report says.
Exceptions, according to the authors of the study, are possible only in those cases "when, for one reason or another, the administration of the region is forced to informally agree to the admission of a real opponent of the governor to the elections." This, the report explains, may be an act of good will, or the result of the informal influence of the federal center, or simply an underestimation of the opponent's capabilities. The authors argue 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 certain regions) has included the number of municipal deputies and heads of municipalities elected by the population to overcome the filter. Among the signatures of deputies in support of almost all candidates for governor registered in 2012-2016, United Russia signatures were present in one quantity or another, 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," OIG experts emphasize.
According to them, many potential candidates with a high level of fame and great electoral experience do not actually participate in the electoral process. At the same time, "many registered candidates, who supposedly independently and successfully overcome the municipal filter, in reality turn out to be electorally insolvent and collect an extremely small percentage of votes in the elections." From this, OIG 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 contribute to the registration of only conditional and unobtrusive opponents of incumbent heads instead of real competitors."
Parties limit themselves
Such a situation may additionally contribute to the refusal of a significant part of voters to participate in the elections, according to OIG experts. They recall that in almost all cases the turnout in gubernatorial elections is less than it was in similar elections in 1990-2000, not combined with federal campaigns. In addition to not voting, protesting voters can vote for "technical" or simply electorally weak opponents of incumbent leaders, the authors write. "Such behavior can boost the performance of even unpromising and not really ready to govern opposition candidates, allowing them to reach levels of formal support that are impossible in an environment of higher political competition," the study emphasizes.
In addition, the technology of the municipal filter leads to the fact that many candidates with serious electoral chances refuse to participate in elections in advance, without even having carried out formal nomination procedures, experts believe.
This may be the result of the formation of pre-election coalitions, agreements to nominate a potential competitor as a member of the Federation Council or to other positions, or even the result of forceful pressure on the party or candidate, the business associated with him, his relatives.
So, for example, Yabloko refused to nominate a candidate for the election of the head of Karelia, although the party has a faction in the legislative assembly in the republic, the party's representative Galina Shirshina was the mayor of Petrozavodsk. In Mari El, she refused to nominate a candidate for the post of head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, although in the 2015 elections her candidate Sergei Mamaev took second place.
"Thus, we are seeing the actual self-limitation of key opposition political parties in nominating real candidates for the positions of heads of regions. Without their own resources to overcome the municipal filter, the parties become even more dependent on the regional power machine and try to nominate only candidates for registration obtain the signatures of municipal deputies loyal to the authorities," the authors of the report emphasize.
Discussion about the municipal filter
Ella Pamfilova, chairman of the Central Election Commission, earlier spoke in favor of softening the municipal filter by lowering its threshold to 5% or allowing deputies to sign for several candidates for governor.
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, "soft stimulation of them to participate in local elections", was far from being achieved everywhere. As a result, the CEC chairman 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 a governor." She believes that "it is necessary to consider all the pluses and minuses [of the filter], to understand what to do next, so that the political system of Russia develops and there is competition."
Pamfilova said that, in agreement with the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergei Kiriyenko, she would gather experts and party representatives in September to discuss options for changing this legislative norm. The issue of the municipal filter, she said, will subsequently be considered by a working group under the presidential administration to improve the electoral legislation.
The leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, A Just Russia, and the Liberal Democratic Party have repeatedly spoken out for the abolition or adjustment of the municipal filter. Vice Speaker of the State Duma, head of the United Russia faction Vladimir Vasiliev expressed confidence that all factions of the State Duma would come to a consolidated decision to change the legislative norm on the municipal filter.
Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko spoke out against the complete abolition of the municipal filter. According to her, the filter was introduced to prevent random people from voting.
This year marks five years since the return of direct gubernatorial elections in Russia. One of their main attributes of campaigns for the election of heads of regions has become a municipal filter: by law, candidates must collect 5-10% of the signatures of deputies in the region. This made it possible to weed out many strong competitors of the current heads of regions. "Power"Understood how the filter worked and why it began to be used less and less.
Photo by Sergey Vasiliev
One of the first steps taken by the mayor of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Roizman, as a candidate for Sverdlovsk governors, was to appeal to Vladimir Putin about the abolition of the municipal filter for acting deputies and municipal heads. "The filter is designed to be insurmountable," the mayor said. Prior to this, a similar letter to the president was sent by the leaders of three Duma factions: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia. They considered that their nominees should not fall under the filter: "For parliamentary political parties, the nomination of a candidate for the position of the highest official of any subject of the Russian Federation has become a much more complicated procedure than the nomination of a candidate for the post of president of the Russian Federation."
President Dmitry Medvedev came up with the idea of returning gubernatorial elections in 2011: the initiative was part of the general liberalization of political legislation after thousands of protest rallies in connection with accusations of falsifying the results of elections to the State Duma. Initially, there was no talk of any special conditions for registering candidates for heads of regions.
However, after the presidential elections and a slight decline in protest activity, the authorities began to think about restrictions.
Vyacheslav Volodin replaced Vladislav Surkov as the curator of domestic policy in the administration by that time.
The formal authors of the idea of a municipal filter were the mayors of cities. The head of Severodvinsk (Arkhangelsk region) Mikhail Gmyrin said at a meeting with Dmitry Medvedev on April 5 that "recommendations at the level of deputies of the municipal council, heads of municipalities, probably, should be taken into account in some way." Samara Mayor Dmitry Azarov spoke more specifically. "It's no secret that crooks, bandits, and extremists often rushed to the governor's chairs in the regions. Today, in my opinion, the possibilities of manipulating public opinion have increased even more. The army of political strategists is literally working throughout the country, and they are all no matter which candidate. Populist promises, intimidation - any toolkit is used by political strategists in this work. And of course, my colleagues and I thought about how we can protect ourselves from this today," he reasoned. Referring to the experience of "some countries", Azarov proposed to introduce the collection of signatures "5-10% of deputies" as a condition of registration. Other municipalities assured the president that the filter would increase the prestige of the work of the local deputy, who would be reckoned with. The governors who were present said that they were not at all against such conditions for nomination. Dmitry Medvedev immediately added his proposal: a local deputy can put his signature only in support of one candidate. In this filtered form, the gubernatorial elections were returned. The final version of the law provided for the collection of 5-10% of signatures of municipal deputies (the number was determined by regional legislative assemblies), in addition, among others, representatives of 75% of district dumas and assemblies of city districts should sign an autograph for a candidate.
The filter is a political issue
“I immediately warned the candidate that passing the municipal filter is not a technological issue, but a political one. Technologists are working to increase their ratings and popularity. But the filter can really only be passed with the approval of the regional administration or the presidential administration,” a political strategist who worked in 2013 told Vlast year in the election of the head of one of the regions.
His customer was not a "Varangian and a rogue" - on the contrary, a candidate from the authorities could rather be considered an outsider, but the local politician did not pass the filter. Prior to this, in 2012, gubernatorial elections were run in only five regions (in most subjects where the term of office of the governor expired, they either managed to be reappointed or new people were appointed), but in two of them, candidates who did not agree with the center and local administrations successfully passed the filter . "The regions were deliberately selected: either small and therefore easily controlled, like the Novgorod region, or fully controlled, like the Belgorod region. Except for Belgorod, the regions were depressed - even a hypothetical victory of an opposition candidate was not so terrible in them," says the source of Vlast. from the environment of Vyacheslav Volodin.
In five regions, different models of the election campaign were indeed implemented. The head of the Belgorod region, Yevgeny Savchenko, had no serious competitors: the communists did not nominate a candidate at all, they picked up rivals for the governor who could be called sparring partners. From the LDPR Irina Gorkova from the Moscow region ran, from the "Patriots of Russia" and "Right Cause" - local, but not rating politicians. Municipalities willing to sign for them, however, were found. Nominees of all parliamentary parties were registered in the Amur Region. Representatives of Right Cause and RPR-PARNAS received a refusal, and the latter did not collect signatures at all. Both in the Belgorod and Amur regions, the administration of the region helped opposition candidates. "This is a typical scenario for all campaigns. Whether they have a real competitor or not, the governor needs 'technicians'. Municipalities are gathered for one big event - either regional or regional - and there they collect signatures en masse.
They can even be affixed on blank sheets in order to decide later which of the “technicians” needs them more,” explains the political strategist, who worked in the gubernatorial elections both for the government and for the opposition.
In the Novgorod region, the nominees of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and A Just Russia were cut off from the elections. "Governor Sergei Mitin could have made a beautiful campaign, there was no threat to him: anyway, victory was secured in the first round. But such a campaign needed finances, and he did not want to spend money," says a source close to the regional administration. The technology was as follows: the authorities collected most of the autographs of municipal deputies in advance, and the communist Olga Efimova and Right-wing Russian Aleksey Afanasyev were therefore unable to collect the required number of them.
How the municipal filter works in France
In November 2012, the then chairman of the CEC Vladimir Churov, speaking about the municipal filter system in his report to the Constitutional Court, mentioned "successfully functioning similar model" in France.
The French municipal filter has been used in presidential elections since 1965. Initially, a presidential candidate had to enlist the support of 100 elected officials, since 1976 the number of required signatures has grown to 500. The total number of potential signatories is more than 47 thousand people, including members of parliament, general and municipal councils, prefects, mayors. Signatures must be collected in at least 30 departments (out of 101). At the same time, the candidate must have no more than 50 signatures from representatives of the same department. It is noted that deputies can cast their votes simultaneously for several candidates. In the presidential elections of 2017, the collection of signatures lasted from March 1 to March 18, 11 candidates managed to collect them, after which the lists with the signatories were published in the public domain.
The gubernatorial campaign began to develop according to an unpredictable scenario in the Ryazan region. A well-known local politician, the deputy head of Rossotrudnichestvo, a former State Duma deputy, Igor Morozov, has come forward against the current Varangian governor Oleg Kovalev. He ran for the "Patriots of Russia" - the party was part of the "All-Russian People's Front" (ONF), so Morozov claimed that the "Front" also supports him. ONF had to clarify that he was in favor of Kovalev. For the incumbent head, the federal official was a dangerous opponent: he had already participated in the elections of the Ryazan governor in 2004 and even won the first round, but lost the second to General Georgy Shpak.
"Morozov is a native Ryazan, since the early 2000s he has been well known throughout the region. First as an assistant to the presidential envoy in the Central Federal District Georgy Poltavchenko, then as a senator, then as a State Duma deputy. In 2012, many stars converged. Signatures for "He was put not only by district and local deputies who knew him personally. He was also able to unite around himself the voices of Oleg Kovalev's opponents. It is difficult to segment that cluster now and understand which signatures were put for Morozov and which ones were against Kovalev. But the fact is undeniable: the municipal Igor Morozov passed the filter confidently and with a margin," Vladimir Kholopov, ex-deputy chairman of the Ryazan City Duma, tells Vlast.
Local influential politicians also began to help Morozov. For example, the municipalities were persuaded by the vice-speaker of the regional Duma, the former regional minister of agriculture of United Russia Sergei Salnikov. He was also close to the Voronezh governor, the former head of the Ministry of Agriculture, Alexei Gordeev, and the enterprises he managed in the Ryazan region were included in the orbit of Gordeev's influence. Igor Morozov was supported not only by farmers. Morozov's former assistant Vladimir Kravchuk worked as the Minister of Territorial Entities of the region at that time. “He was hired by the vice-governor Andrei Shevelev, who later became the governor of Tver - he crossed paths with Kravchuk while still serving in the airborne troops. But then there was no talk of electing the head of the region, so Morozov simply could not be considered a rival. the question is which side Kravchuk is on - Kovalyov or Morozov. He chose an old friend, provided Morozov with the passage of the filter and immediately went on vacation, did not engage in elections, and after Kovalev's victory he resigned from the post of minister, "says a Vlast source close to the administration of the region.
Real competition in the Ryazan region, apparently, was not part of the plans of the regional administration and the Kremlin.
Morozov was made an offer he could not refuse: in exchange for withdrawing his candidacy, he became a senator from the region.
One of the ex-deputies of the legislature claims that Igor Morozov considered the bargaining scenario from the very beginning: "The support group in the elite, of course, did not count on such behavior, many who spoke for Morozov then suffered." The parliamentarian considered the chances of Morozov's election to be very high.
In the Bryansk region, everything went according to a different scenario. Indeed, a Varangian businessman from the Leningrad region, a State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Vadim Potomsky, really came out to vote against Governor Nikolai Denin. Another real competitor was Vyacheslav Rudnikov, head of the local branch of A Just Russia, but also a Varangian businessman from Moscow. The electoral commission did not accept the signatures for Spravoross, allegedly the deputies who put them had previously supported other candidates.
"This is the most common technology for filter refusal - the so-called double signatures. The deputy supported the real competitor of the governor, they call him and say: now you will support the head of the region or the "technician", only in hindsight.
Most municipalities are state employees, they cannot refuse. Rudnikov became a pioneer in the use of this technology,” says political strategist Sergei Malakhov, who worked for Vadim Potomsky in those elections. The latter, according to him, was more difficult to remove in this way: he used the resource of deputies elected from the Communist Party and found a common language with the locals "The work was not with individual deputies, but with pools of municipalities, who were led to local meetings by businessmen or heads dissatisfied with Denin," Malakhov says. I agreed with such a person - I received a package of his deputies. In these negotiations, it is important to convince that the candidate can really win, that he is “agreed,” says Malakhov. At the same time, he clarifies that the administration of Nikolai Denin did not interfere with the collection of signatures by Potomsky, apparently not considering him a strong competitor. eventually lost.
"But in principle, any candidate can be denied a municipal filter for various reasons. This issue is entirely in the hands of the authorities - even the size of the filter, 5% or 10%, is not important," concludes Malakhov.
Double problem
In 2013, the successes of Igor Morozov and Vadim Potomsky in overcoming the filter inspired representatives of the teams of heads of regions, whose powers were not renewed, to participate in the gubernatorial elections. In the Trans-Baikal Territory, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the region Alexei Koshelev, who was the first to hand over deputy signatures, was nominated by the Civic Platform. For the closest associate of the departed governor, Ravil Geniatulin, collecting signatures was not a difficult task: he knew all the heads of districts and cities. The candidate from the authorities was a Varangian, Right Russian Konstantin Ilkovsky, who, it would seem, did not have such contacts. However, the electoral committee refused to register Koshelev: the doubled signatures were the reason.
In the Vladimir region, Alexander Filippov moved forward from the Civic Platform. His father, Vladimir Filippov, was vice-governor under the departed head, the communist Nikolai Vinogradov, and during the campaign he worked as the head of a local "daughter" of Gazprom and was on good terms with the head of the corporation's board of directors, Viktor Zubkov. From the "United Russia" put forward the former vice-speaker of the Federation Council Svetlana Orlova. “Filippov believed that the Civic Platform would help him with the signatures of the deputies. But then it became obvious that this would not happen. We faced such difficulties: there is no unified register of current deputies anywhere. that these deputies have long ceased their powers. The administration went ahead of the curve: the Legislative Assembly decided to call elections on Saturday, it was published on Sunday. Already on Monday, most of the municipalities gathered for the event and took their signatures," he recalls. Filippov collected signatures, but they were predictably duplicated. "Most of the municipalities are state employees or work at government-affiliated enterprises.
For example, a woman called us in tears, who at work was threatened with dismissal and even a ban on traveling abroad, she asked to withdraw her signature, "recalls Bystrov.
Already during the campaign, a criminal case was opened against Alexander Filippov, then another one was added to it. His father was fired and also fell under criminal prosecution.
In 2013, the filter was last used as the main means of cutting off uncomfortable strong candidates. Even then, the presidential administration proclaimed a policy of "competitiveness, openness and legitimacy," and United Russia declared that they were ready to help other candidates collect signatures. In Moscow, autographs of municipalities from the ruling party were accepted by Alexei Navalny, in the Moscow region - by ex-State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov.
In 2014-2016, a new era of gubernatorial elections began, when their predictable result was ensured without the use of a filter. Political technologist Maria Mincheva, who worked in the 2014 presidential elections in Bashkiria at the headquarters of the former prime minister of the republic, Rail Sarbaev, believes that "any candidate who has lived in the region for a long time and has organizational resources and means" can collect signatures for the filter. She recalls that during the campaign of Sarbaev, who was nominated by Civil Force, ten high-class lawyers worked on collecting signatures. “Support was agreed with some of the deputies in advance, someone was promoted by Rail Sarbaev himself. He was supported by a pool of people respected in the republic: ex-president Murtaza Rakhimov, former ministers of the republican government with whom Sarbaev worked. whom they helped in their election," says Mincheva. According to her, candidates from the authorities, as a rule, collect signatures of local deputies in a centralized manner: “It could be some kind of forum of deputies or supporters of United Russia. The authorities can also influence the candidate, and these are not necessarily doubled autographs.As soon as the headquarters of the United Russia candidate realized that we were collecting the required number of signatures, notary offices in the republic began to close, we had to take the deputies to the neighboring Chelyabinsk region.Some notaries made strange mistakes in documents, possibly intentional."
According to her, to prevent candidates before the elections by negotiating with them or by agreeing to withdraw a candidate with the party that nominated it, "is easier than using a filter." “There are too many things involved in the filter scheme: lawyers, election commissions.
Prevention before the elections without using a filter saves the candidate's resources: he went to three party offices, realized that his nomination is undesirable, nothing shines for him, and abandoned this idea.
He would have spent money on collecting signatures to pass the filter and would have been withdrawn anyway,” she states. Sarbaev collected signatures, but he was withdrawn from the elections by Civil Force.
There were 30 gubernatorial campaigns in 2014, and only in two of them did strong candidates miss the election because of the filter. In St. Petersburg, Oksana Dmitrieva, State Duma deputy from A Just Russia, failed to collect the required number of signatures. In the Kursk region, the signatures given in support of the ex-governor, former vice-president Alexander Rutskoy were recognized as invalid. Moreover, Rutskoi initially ran into a party filter: he intended to run for Patriots of Russia, but in the end he was nominated by Democratic Legal Russia.
In other cases, the parties themselves removed their candidate. In the Orenburg region, a strong competitor to the current head Yuri Berg, Sergey Katasonov, was recalled by the Liberal Democratic Party. In the Oryol region, "Patriots of Russia" did not nominate the ex-speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Ivan Mosyakin. In 2015-2016, scandals in the gubernatorial elections were minimized: last year, the head of the legal service of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Vadim Solovyov, did not pass the filter in the election of the governor of the Tver region. He collected the signatures of the deputies, but he himself admitted that he initially submitted the wrong deputies' autographs to the election commission; the commission took advantage of the mistake and refused Solovyov. Statistics show how the system began to work: if in 2013 an average of 11.8 candidates were nominated, and only five of them received registration, then in 2016 there were 5.9 and 4.4 candidates, respectively.
According to a source from Vyacheslav Volodin's entourage, the first two years of using the municipal filter showed that it was easier to ensure the desired results of the gubernatorial elections in other ways: "The first years of the gubernatorial elections became extremely scandalous precisely because of the filter." Negotiations and bidding began with potential opponents, and agreements with parties began to come into play, which began to refuse strong candidates or remove them.
“The filter is dirt in the campaign, it began to discredit the elections. When a candidate is refused, he can always say: I had the support of the deputies, but the chimps removed me because they are afraid.
When the party shoots, and these were extreme cases, this is already politics, the candidate and the party did not get along, it’s understandable, it happens,” the interlocutor explains. He believes that the overall alignment of the political system would sooner or later lead to the abolition of the filter: "Under Volodin, everything went exactly towards this."
Despite these assertions, it is precisely because of the filter that regional influential groups and possible strong candidates shun participation in the gubernatorial elections. A source in the Legislative Assembly of one of the regions with strong protest moods, where the gubernatorial elections will be held this year, claims that, despite the low popularity of the acting interim and the presence of strong potential competitors, there will be no intrigue in the campaign. "146% that no one will be nominated. Local deputies are controlled by the district authorities, but they will still trump the regional authorities. They will never go into a head-on collision, it is important for them to feel like members of a team, a vertical," the deputy shrugged.
No sooner have Russians recovered from the presidential election than in September, many of them will have to face another election campaign. On a single voting day, September 9, 2018, elections of heads of 21 constituent entities of the Federation and elections of deputies of regional parliaments will be held.
Of the 21 regions, only in three cases will voting be conducted 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 deserve 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, go through the so-called municipal filter.
Opposition politicians, both systemic and non-systemic, see the filter as a barrier to democratic elections. They are sure that in this way the authorities cut off candidates they do not like already on the way to the election campaign and crack down on their political opponents. No one has a chance to overcome this barrier without the help of representatives of the authorities, except for a candidate from the same authorities.
Photo: © GLOBAL LOOK press/Russian Government Press Office
The municipal filter was introduced in 2012, immediately after the return of direct elections of heads of regions 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. Thus, 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 to meet the demands of the protesters. However, as it turned out later, this step was half-hearted.
“Reassessing the prospects for the protest movement and the prospects for a 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, the parties received a simplified registration procedure, and de facto they registered only those they wanted. This notorious municipal filter has been introduced for governors. Initially, this was done in order to prevent undesirable elements from participating in election campaigns of any level. They thought that 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 move Sobyanin in the election of the mayor of Moscow
Sergey Udaltsov told Storm about the ambitions of the left forces, relations with Yashin and Navalny, as well as interaction with liberals April 18, 2018Having returned to the Russians the right to choose their own governors and mayors, the officials decided to play it safe - they introduced a municipal filter. This procedure is a collection of signatures of deputies of municipalities in support of candidates for the positions of heads of regions.
The Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Research was an organization that analyzed and worked out the mechanisms for the introduction and operation of the municipal filter since its introduction. According to ISEPS experts, the filter fulfilled its political tasks.
Unlike the elections of other levels, the gubernatorial campaigns avoided dirty political technologies, and there were no twin governors, that is, candidates with the same last name as a strong candidate. The introduction of the filter, according to the ISEPI, ensured transparency and cleanliness of the elections of the heads of regions.
The second purpose of the introduction of the municipal filter is the orientation of parliamentary parties to active work at the local level. The creators of the filter meant that the parties should work not only during the period of 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. With this task, according to ISEPI, they also managed to cope, albeit with varying 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, the municipal deputies from the "United Russia" had to put their signatures for nominees from the opposition parliamentary parties, who lacked their signatures. Otherwise, the opposition threatened to boycott the elections and, accordingly, the non-recognition of their legitimacy.
The expert also recognizes another filter problem - the pressure of 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 in the expert community 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 to power - only well-deserved politicians who are known and respected by municipal deputies. However, as it turned out later, this step was aimed at fighting opposition representatives participating in the elections. They practically lost the chance to be registered without the consent of the authorities.
Each subject of Russia establishes its own norms 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 the passage of the municipal filter on the example of the election of 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, there are 125 districts and 21 municipalities in the capital (the territory of New Moscow). Total 146 municipal districts. Any candidate going to the city elections must obtain at least 109 signatures in their support from at least 109 municipalities of the city. Self-nominated, in addition to 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).
Following the results of the elections to the municipal councils - 2017, which took place in 124 districts of old Moscow and in the urban district of Troitsk, United Russia received a blocking number of municipal deputies - 1153 mandates ended up in the hands of the ruling party, United Russia received seven more deputies a year earlier in the elections to Shchukin 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 seats were given to self-nominees, the Party of Growth received five more deputies, and PARNAS has two parliamentarians.
The same is the case with candidates from parliamentary parties who will not be able to nominate their own person without outside help. The Communist Party managed to defend 44 mandates (against 159 in the previous elections), the Socialist-Revolutionaries - 10 (against 114) and four seats were for the Liberal Democratic Party.
Moreover, even if opposition deputies from different flanks merge in a single ecstasy and try to push through one single candidate to counterbalance Sobyanin, they will still fail. In 55 out of 126 districts of Moscow there is not a single deputy from the opposition, and in another 41 there is an overwhelming majority for United Russia.
Image: © Daily Storm And a similar picture is observed in all regions of our country. To run for governor or mayor, the opposition has 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 same municipal filter.
“For power, 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 election of the mayor of Moscow, United Russia, on orders from above, 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 the political landscape at the regional level.”
In 2017, the two most high-profile cases in the regional elections concerned Buryatia and the Sverdlovsk region. Two strong regional politicians failed to become candidates for governor: Communist Senator Vyacheslav Markhaev and Mayor of Yekaterinburg Yevgeny Roizman.
The leader of the Communists of Buryatia, Markhaev, who posed a real threat to the candidate from the government, was denied registration because of the so-called double signatures. The filter assumes that one deputy cannot sign for two candidates, only for one. By the way, President Dmitry Medvedev proposed this amendment at the stage of discussion of the bill on the municipal filter in 2012.
And Roizman, beloved by the Sverdlovsk residents, did not manage to collect the required number of signatures at all. United Russia deputies did not help the protesting mayor to participate in the election of the head of the region. Of the 126 signatures required for the nomination of Yevgeny Roizman, only 39 were signed.
"It's not about Yashin." Why Navalny does not want to see Dmitry Gudkov as a single candidate from the opposition in the elections of the mayor of Moscow
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 oppositionists and the expert community. The factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and the "Fair Russia" in the State Duma introduced bills for its complete elimination or relaxation 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 let only weak opponents they like to pass.
The Institute for 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 is not at the moment. 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, in unequal conditions. However, Alexander Pozhalov, director of research at ISEPI, believes that it makes sense to reform the municipal filter in three directions.
"First. Automatic recognition of the fact that the parties that have fulfilled the municipal standard in local elections have passed the municipal filter. The second is the departure from the strict rule: "One deputy - one signature" with a simultaneous increase in transparency and control by the opposition over the process of collecting deputies' signatures. And the third is the mitigation of the geographical significance of the municipal filter, Pozhalov suggests. If this strict norm is adjusted to at least the signatures of deputies from half of the districts, and not 3/4, as it is now, then it will be much more difficult for administrations at the regional level to limit their competitors in the collection signatures in the right amount.
Screenshot: Andrey Kolyadin © Daily Storm However, not everyone in the expert community agrees with such a filter reform. In a conversation with Storm, Andrey Kolyadin, a political strategist and head of the regional policy department of the Russian presidential administration for domestic policy in 2009-2012, said that the municipal filter as such has outlived its usefulness, but still continues to suit the authorities.
“The fear that the people will come up with something and choose the wrong person, it is present and does not go anywhere. Although, I think that this fear of the authorities needs to be fought,” he believes.
Using the candidate filtering system, the authorities correct and control the number and composition of applicants for the chair of the heads of regions, 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, not coordinated 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 the nomination of the city governor in 2017] , it turned out to be very difficult to implement, Kolyadin said.
The political strategist is sure that the municipal filter system has exhausted itself, however, “Unfortunately, the authorities do not understand this.”
“The fact is that the main thing for them is to maintain control over those persons who become mayors and governors. But there is a thing 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 elect this person or for some reason believes that they did not elect him, since the filter removed the candidates for whom people could vote, then the population is not responsible for the actions that the authorities in this territory carry out.” .
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 leadership of the region. In particular, he asks the question: “Does the same Vorobyov have anything to do with the fact that gas broke through at landfills for municipal solid waste? No. Landfills have their own owners, this is a federal problem, 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 you have a snowball in a tambourine."
The abolition of the municipal filter and the holding of direct, fair and competitive elections presupposes 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 chose him yourself! We can help you, we can remove this person, but then you must choose another one for yourself.. Here the federal government becomes a regulator, an arbitrator, 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 direct line: repair the road, paint the door, pay your salary. From this point of view, the filter is an obsolete procedure,- explains a former employee of the presidential administration. - Democracy is not only democracy, but also the best mechanism for 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 threatens the same Sobyanin. No one is able to compete with him. Yes, he will gain not 70%, but more than 50%, and this is enough to win in a normal competition.”
Despite the unanimous understanding of the oppositionists that the municipal filter should be abolished, a unified understanding on this score has not yet been formed in the authorities. Apparently, in this political season, the oppositionists are unlikely to wait for the abolition of the municipal filter and they will again have to turn to the ruling party for the votes of deputies. Well, the government, as, in its opinion, it is supposed to, will decide who to let in the elections and who not.
“Vladimir Putin's super result - both in terms of turnout and in terms of the final result - demonstrated that the government has support, so talk about canceling the filter has died down. But even if the government cancels the municipal filter, it 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.
Loading...
