23/08/2016
I watched the first television debates of the parties before the elections to the State Duma, which were shown on RTR yesterday. Yavlinsky shocked me from the very beginning - after all, he is a rare cynic.
T At the first stage, politicians had to express their party’s “creed” in 30 seconds. Well, Yavlinsky declares, without blinking an eye: “The main thing now is not to lie and not to steal!”
I already choked on my tea. This is Navalny’s key slogan from the last elections! And Yavlinsky “borrows” it with ease. Moreover, which is typical, without any reference to the author. I have no reverence for both of them, but I even felt somehow offended for Navalny: he was not allowed to participate in the elections, and then “colleagues” are also robbing him.
And it would be good if they were - Yavlinsky and Navalny, or Yabloko and the “Navalnovites” - if only they were like-minded people or at least partners! But it’s nothing like that: on the contrary, it was Yavlinsky who at one time threw Navalny out of Yabloko. And now he is repeating his slogans without any embarrassment.
Moreover, I am almost sure that this was a completely deliberate spit on Yavlinsky’s part, a kind of correspondence dialogue with his long-time opponent. A kind of mockery - yes, I stand here and do what I want, but you can’t do anything to me! The winner Yavlinsky triumphs over the loser Navalny on the state television channel.
The possibility of legislatively enshrining the obligation of all parties to participate in pre-election debates is being discussed, a source in the leadership of the upper house of parliament told Gazeta.Ru and was confirmed by an interlocutor close to the Kremlin.
According to them, the idea is being discussed quite seriously, the likelihood of introducing a corresponding bill and, accordingly, its adoption is high. If the idea is implemented in practice, the norm will begin to apply at the Duma elections in 2016.
A source in the leadership of the State Duma recalls that at present participation in debates is not mandatory: “Parties can ignore them, they may simply not come, and then the discussion of other participants begins with an empty space. This is discrediting the institution of elections and reducing trust in them. It is therefore logical to demand that all parties take part in the debate.”
However, there is no question of obliging absolutely all candidates nominated by one or another political force to come to the debate, adds Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor: parties, as now, must decide for themselves who they will nominate for discussions with their opponents.
A source close to the Kremlin says that legislative enshrinement of the norm on mandatory participation of parties in debates will contribute to “the formation of traditions, principles, standards of political behavior”: “Debates are one of the key formats of election competition. Mandatory participation in them will increase the status and significance of this format, will help improve the quality of competition, and stimulate parties to more meaningful discussions, and not just hanging slogans praising their loved ones. This is a systemic solution."
How to punish those who may ignore the law?
“This is a matter under discussion.
Removal from elections is too harsh a decision. We are talking, for example, about the party being deprived of free airtime, including advertising,” says a source in the State Duma leadership.
In part, the idea to legislate the obligation of parties to send their candidates to debates was dictated by the recent gubernatorial elections, admits an interlocutor close to the leadership of United Russia. First of all, we are talking about the campaign in the Irkutsk region, where the current head of the region lost to the communist in the second round. “This is the very case when non-participation in debates harms precisely those who do not come to them,” says a Gazeta.Ru source. — Eroshchenko’s non-participation played into Levchenko’s hands. He criticized the authorities, but no one had a meaningful discussion with him.”
Today, the possibility of extending the obligation to participate in debates to the level of regional elections, primarily gubernatorial elections, is being discussed, says an interlocutor close to the Kremlin.
However, he continues, there is a peculiarity here: if amendments to federal legislation are sufficient to consolidate the obligation to participate in debates in the Duma elections, then when it comes to regional campaigns, each subject must also adopt amendments to their own laws: “We must change the entire body of regional legislation.” It is not a fact, according to the source, that the subjects will have time to do this by the next single voting day.
Let us add on our own behalf: if a command comes from the federal center, then everyone will have to make it in time. Another thing is whether those same governors will be required to personally attend debates or will be able to send proxies in their place. Currently, this remains at the discretion of regional authorities and is regulated differently in each region. It is possible that this will remain the case in the future, a source in the State Duma leadership believes. But there is no solution yet.
It is possible that the “compulsion” to debate will take place in stages.
“If the norm on mandatory participation in debates is used in the Duma elections, this could become a signal for regional political systems. A gradual logic can be applied: the political system as a whole receives a signal that the debate is important from a competitive point of view, and then the applicability of these norms in relation to regional campaigns can be discussed,” says a source close to the Kremlin.
Parties can also set a certain example with their behavior, he adds. First of all, we are talking about United Russia, which announced that participation in debates in internal party primaries is mandatory for all its candidates.
What about the presidential elections? How likely is it that the rule about the obligation to “go” to discussions with opponents, subject to its adoption, will apply to them?
“In this case, there should be a separate discussion,” says an interlocutor in the State Duma leadership. — The institution of the presidency plays a special role in the Russian political system.
This is also emphasized by the fact that presidential elections are outside the logic of a single voting day (the presidential campaign takes place in March, all other elections take place in September. - Gazeta.Ru). Therefore, in presidential elections, the legal regimes of these procedures (campaigning - Gazeta.Ru) may be special, different from campaigns at another level.”
Let us remember that so far not a single current Russian president has personally participated in the debate. For example, in 2012, instead of Vladimir Putin, his trusted representatives came to discussions with opponents. This caused protest from other participants in the presidential race. and even stated that they would not discuss with proxies of the head of state.
The secretary told Gazeta.Ru that he supported the idea of obliging parties to participate in debates: “We already had similar bills. We are ready to contribute one more.”
In his opinion, if United Russia supports the initiative, this will mean that they decided to give the party a little boost before the elections: “After all, United Russia must somehow be activated so that they work and not just hide behind Putin’s rating.”
The deputy recalls that during the 2011 Duma elections they participated quite actively in the debates, and only then, at the regional ones, they “got lazy.”
As for the presidential and gubernatorial elections, Obukhov is sure that the initiative to make it mandatory to participate in the debates is unlikely to pass: “They won’t dare to do this. According to the current concept, if a governor enters a debate with an opposition member, he thereby admits: “I am the same as you.” The celestials will not stoop to the level of any clowns from small parties who also participate in elections,” says the communist.
The Deputy Speaker of the State Duma told Gazeta.Ru that the Liberal Democrats will support the rule on mandatory participation in debates if the corresponding bill is submitted to the State Duma. However, according to him, it would be nice to extend the “rules of the game” to the gubernatorial level. “If United Russia still takes part in the debates in the Duma elections, the governors ignore them,” complains the LDPR representative.
The first deputy leader of the Duma faction believes that the introduction of “forced” debates is an “artificial demonstration of political competition”: “With real competition, all parties are already interested in debates. And if one avoids them, it means that it is confident of victory with the help of administrative resources and manipulation.”
At the same time, the parliamentarian assumes that his faction will support such an initiative, although with much greater pleasure it would welcome the provision of equal opportunities for all election participants.
According to Emelyanov,
President Putin is the only political player who can refuse debates without harming himself: “Putin is a special article, he does not belong to any political force, and his real rating is very high.
But when the party in power and its governors do not go to debates and get good results, I want to ask: “At what expense?”
A State Duma deputy from United Russia told Gazeta.Ru that the party in power is already committed to the participation of candidates in debates and, most likely, such a position will be fixed following the results of the pre-election congress: “Personally, I have the opportunity to adopt such a norm ( about compulsory participation in debates - “Gazeta.Ru”) does not cause any caution, but generates positivity.”
According to Khinshtein, debates are an integral part of political life, and by refusing them, the candidate only makes things worse for himself.
At the same time, the United Russia member emphasizes that “reason and expediency” must be present in everything, so Putin can neglect debates. “I understand the inappropriateness of debates between Putin and, for example, the former leader of Right Cause, who also ran for president. Well, what kind of debate will there be?” — asks the United Russia member.
On Monday, the first debate of candidates for State Duma deputies took place on the Rossiya 1 channel. Participants had to speak on a given topic - the economic program of the parties. The format does not involve a discussion between candidates, but it still happened during the speech of PARNAS candidate Vyacheslav Maltsev, who called the main goal of the party to impeach the president.
Residents of the Far East could watch the debate on Monday live on the Russia 1 channel, and in the Moscow time zone they were shown in a recording at 17:50. The format consists only of speeches by participants on a given topic and does not involve discussion between them, and in fact it cannot be called a debate. Each candidate was given 4 minutes to speak and 30 seconds to greet and conclude. Six candidates took part in Monday's debate, asking them to talk about their parties' economic programs.
Spravoross Alexander Burkov spoke about a “progressive scale of taxation.” According to him, citizens with low salaries should be generally exempt from paying income tax, but “if you receive 200 thousand rubles a month or a million, you already pay 25–30%, as in any developed country.” The leader of Patriots of Russia, Gennady Semigin, proposed to “replace all unprofessional personnel in the country” and “stop major repairs.” Civic Platform leader Rifat Shaikhutdinov said the party wants to “kick out the pseudo-liberals from the government” and “create an economy independent of the dollar.” Former Spravoross Oksana Dmitrieva (nominated by the Growth Party) said that for economic growth it is necessary to “index wages, and not freeze them, as the government does.”
The leader of the Yabloko list, Grigory Yavlinsky, called the main problem the rise in prices against the backdrop of declining wages and called for the adoption of a package of laws aimed at “collusion of retail chains with manufacturers,” as well as to stop destroying sanctioned products.
PARNAS nominee Saratov blogger Vyacheslav Maltsev (he came to the shooting in the company of nationalist Dmitry Dyomushkin) said that “all nationalists and liberals united today at the PARNAS site” to “impeach Putin.” “The situation turns out to be the same as always: the boyars are to blame, they are bad, and the tsar is wonderful,” said Mr. Maltsev. “But if the tsar does not know what is happening in the country, then such a tsar should be put in a madhouse. If he knows and does not interfere with this, he should be put in prison. And if he knows and contributes to this, such kings should be impaled.” “What should we do with the economy? - Dmitry Shchugorev interrupted him, who had practically never interrupted the candidates or asked additional questions. “I remind you: we have taxes in our economy, we have tariffs.” There are a lot of topics that interest citizens.” “But they are not interested in anything, they are only interested in revolutions and Maidan,” Rifat Shaikhutdinov responded to this. “We just want to save Russia from a bloody revolution and call for a normal revolution, constitutionally, through impeachment,” said Vyacheslav Maltsev. “But in your economic program it is written not only that you do not like Putin,” the presenter once again tried to return him to the topic of discussion. “I know what is written in the program, I express my point of view,” said the PARNAS nominee, but he never moved on to economics. “And it’s also Putin’s fault that you are such dreamers, right?” - asked Rifat Shaikhutdinov.
Photo: Kristina Kormilitsyna, Kommersant
PARNAS Chairman Mikhail Kasyanov told Kommersant that the leaders of the list will participate in the debate: himself, Vyacheslav Maltsev and historian Andrei Zubov. He confirmed that Mr. Maltsev’s statements at the debate coincided with the party’s position. “United Russia was the initiator of the amendments that made debate mandatory for candidates, and here it is the most vulnerable,” Petr Tolstoy, candidate for State Duma deputy from the party in power, told Kommersant. “The opposition parties agree that “United Russia” wrong." But candidates should not “make accusations against the country’s leadership,” says Mr. Tolstoy (he is running in the Lublin single-mandate constituency in Moscow), and at debates “you need to talk to voters, and not to those speaking in the studio”: “Get into personal discussion is not the task of debate.”
Viewers of federal television channels will not see single-mandate candidates if the party leadership does not involve them in the debate. The exception will be the regional branches of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, a source at the Central Election Commission told Kommersant. In Moscow, candidates of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia complained to the Central Election Commission about the cancellation of debates by the Moscow City Election Commission. The Moscow-24 and Doverie channels allocated 600 minutes for the debate: each of the 180 single-mandate candidates received 1 minute 40 seconds of airtime. But if there are less than 5 minutes per candidate, then the debate is replaced by a video recording. Kommersant’s interlocutor at the Central Election Commission notes that this situation is typical not only in Moscow, but also in other regions where there are many constituencies and single-mandate seats.
Natalya Korchenkova, Maxim Ivanov
Before elections, Russian politicians frantically come up with an agenda. It’s not that there are no exciting topics in the country - it’s just that few people care about them, such a paradox. At least to the extent of openly expressing your position.
As part of the upcoming election campaign Russian parties began writing programs and choosing strategies. In fact, all this competition causes nothing but a toothache - the hastily invented agenda still has nothing in common with the real one.
For example, on this week " " held the first meeting to prepare for writing a policy document. “The program must clearly answer the question of how those problems, primarily social ones, that concern the citizens of our country will be solved,” Prime Minister and Party Chairman Dmitry Medvedev set the task. And he added that nothing should be neglected: various proposals must be accepted from non-party people, and during the primaries, if someone says something interesting, they must also be selected and used.
Such a strategy is certainly needed recognize as wise. To avoid making mistakes about what to say to voters, you need to ask: “Tell me, what would you like us to tell you?” In general, the only answer that United Russia can give is: “Everything that the president and the government do is correct.” How can you answer, for example, the question about the collapse of the ruble, if the Kremlin has already said that there is no collapse?
"A Just Russia" flew to attack on the government under the slogan “Do or leave” and began collecting signatures. But there are only a few points in the loud appeal: the abolition of fees for major repairs, the abolition of transport tax, and the recalculation of property taxes. Is that all the government has to do? Do you really believe that for these three rubles people will dare to rebel against their bosses?
In fact, how Strangely enough, such things could theoretically become anchors in some more classic campaign. But in our conditions there are nuances, the main one of which is that the government will not resign even if A Just Russia suddenly gains a majority in the State Duma. Everyone understands this, starting with the leader of the SR Sergei Mironov.
Politicians in Russia are beginning frantically come up with an agenda. It’s not that there are no exciting topics in the country - it’s just that few people care about them, such a paradox. At least to the extent of openly expressing your position. The reality is that there are decisions by the authorities that can either be warmly welcomed or grumbled in the corner. You can lobby, but you can't argue publicly with the finished product. There can be no discussion around the overhaul fee; at best there can only be a survey: “Do you think this is good or bad?” It’s strange to imagine that people who have never been asked will suddenly be taken and asked.
Watch these escheats it is impossible to argue seriously; The American primaries are even more interesting. It is clear that people have issues that will be resolved one way or another.
Let's try to present it in Russia a reasoned discussion between systemic politicians about whether it is necessary to fight in Syria or whether it is necessary to limit the influence of intelligence services on the Internet. And the person who wins will really, really truly decide whether to send troops or not. It even sounds funny.
That's right, Dmitry Medvedev refuses from participating in debates - what is the point of answering questions previously agreed upon by the presidential administration.
Select the fragment with the error text and press Ctrl+Enter
Those who followed the presidential campaign mainly on television, and the public debates of the candidates, might have gotten the impression that the entire election struggle boiled down to accusing one candidate of open promiscuity, sexual promiscuity, and the other (the other) of unacceptable negligence in secret business matters. correspondence and financial irregularities in the family foundation. However, the pre-election struggle of the candidates of the two parties was not limited to mutual denunciations - and at times insults - of the two candidates; it, in various forms, touched upon serious problems of American society, contradictions between its various layers, which was reflected in public opinion polls.
First of all, the election struggle was not limited to three television debates. Moreover, the televised debates had little impact on the candidates' ratings. Despite the scandalous mutual revelations of the candidates, including during the debates, after the debates, support for the candidates remained almost at the same level. For example, after the second debate on September 26, when many in the press said that Trump had won it and pulled ahead, Trump's approval changed slightly, from 32% to 35%, while Clinton's remained unchanged at 41%.
And in general, throughout the year of the campaign, assessments of candidates changed slightly - the difference in electoral ratings was about 10%. The conventions of the two parties and television debates had little effect on the willingness to vote for one candidate or another. Although the American and world press have traditionally presented the campaign as a horse race, with one rider jumping ahead and then another, in reality there was no such drama, as the graph from Gallup polls shows (Fig. 1).
Rice. 1. Positive assessments of H. Clinton and D. Trump. Source: Gallup U.S. Daily, October 19, 2016.
Moreover, for both candidates, negative assessments outweighed positive ones (Table 1). That is, Americans will not choose the one they like best, but rather the one who causes them less hostility.
Table 1. Positive and negative assessments of candidates (in%, survey October 13-17, 2016).
Source: Source: Gallup U.S. Daily, October 19, 2016.Interest in the campaign. Evaluation of the electoral system
Since February of this year, about 40% of Americans have reported in surveys that they are following the campaign “very closely”, and the press has quite satisfied this interest - 75-80% have watched or heard something about the campaign “in the last day or two.” . Even among young people aged 18-30, 49% expressed very much or significant interest in the elections and 45-47% planned to participate. In the last presidential election in 2012, according to their own responses in public opinion polls, 68% of young people took part in the elections. Even though people in most countries tend to exaggerate their social activism in hindsight, more than half of American youth vote.
This activism does not eliminate Americans' criticism of the shortcomings of their electoral system, especially in the last two decades. The traditional reproach is the imperfection and constraint of the actual two-party system, when two traditionally established political parties monopolize the political “market” without reflecting the views of all segments of the population and the entire spectrum of political views. Many believe that if this stale tradition were overcome, in America, as in Europe, there would be 5-7 political parties, including social democratic, clerical, farmer and others. As a result, 57% of Americans support the idea of a third mass party, while 46% believe the current two-party system is still effective.
Only 29% of Democratic supporters and 16% of Republicans have a lot of confidence in their party, and, respectively, 31% and 17% believe in the fairness of the process of nominating their party's candidates in the presidential election. Among the reasons for such low trust in their parties, first of all, are the following - their leadership nominates candidates only from their bureaucratic elite, they are inattentive to the requests of ordinary members, the parties have lost the ability to put forward new ideas to solve the country's problems. Only 17% saw such a capacity for “new ideas” in the leadership of the Democratic Party and 10% in the Republicans.
As a result, while 65% were interested in the progress of the campaign, only 37% pinned any hopes on it for solving the problems of the country and voters. Neither Trump's showmanship extravagance nor Clinton's obvious managerial experience responded to the campaign's demand for “new ideas.”
The nature of this election campaign, the style of behavior and speech of the candidates and their teams have become the subject of growing criticism from voters. Trump’s statements during speeches and debates of an anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant nature, as well as his rude and insulting attacks against Democratic opponents, especially attracted a lot of criticism. His campaign organizers failed to notice that Americans had changed from the generations of the 1930s, or the post-war, or the Vietnam War protests. Although polls show that Americans are ruder than they were 20 or 30 years ago, more people are condemning obscene language in public places, ironic or derogatory remarks about people's nationality, their sexual orientation, sex jokes, and "male chauvinism." Moreover, all this is considered unacceptable for political figures, especially during election campaigns. And this campaign in its rudeness exceeded the level of rudeness in American everyday life. In addition to many disparaging, insulting language directed at Clinton, one of Trump's supporters on a television show called her a witch. In our country, this image was picked up by V.V. Zhirinovsky, calling Hillary Clinton a “underwater snake”, a “witch”.
This campaign revealed another feature of Americans' distrust in the electoral process - fears that the elections will be somehow dishonest or rigged. Disturbances in past elections with the need to recount votes and re-vote in certain areas have now led to the assessment of a third of voters that the elections are largely unfair, people who do not have the right to vote vote in them, or vote again - this is the opinion of 35% of voters.
In addition, recent hacking of computers of government agencies, large corporations and the headquarters of the Democratic Party has caused many to fear that the election results could also be rigged through hacker attacks. Although about 60% believe that thanks to the introduction of modern vote counting technologies, errors are reduced, new dangers have arisen - hackers. While it is unlikely in the United States that entire military units will be organized to vote for someone or students will be bused in to vote “correctly,” voter fears of errors and fraud in the counting of votes and possible attacks by hackers have grown significantly.
As a result, the campaign discussed various measures to improve the electoral process, both in terms of its greater accessibility for various categories of voters and to protect against fraud. 60% support allowing early or absentee voting. Democrats are more actively advocating for easing restrictions in this regard, which would give their traditional supporters from ethnic minorities and young people more chances to vote. On the other hand, 79% favor expanding the practice of verifying voters' identities using photo IDs (the US does not have mandatory domestic passports). Among Democrats this figure is 71%, among Republicans - 92%; it would be more likely to weed out Democratic supporters.
Where is America going?
The underlying mood in the campaign was voters' overall assessment of the state of affairs in the country - where America is going, and this assessment is quite low - only 28% are satisfied with "the way things are in the United States." That's markedly lower than the average satisfaction level of 37% since Gallup began measuring it in 1979. At the same time, this is practically the average level over the past 10 years - since the end of the Bush administration. The kind of Obama who accepted America is the one who passes. The difference between the assessments of supporters of the two parties is radical: 49% of Democrats are satisfied with the state of affairs and only 8% of Republicans (Figure 2).
Rice. 2. Satisfaction with the state of affairs in the country. Source: Gallup Poll, Election 2016. October 13, 2016.
These assessments could serve as an indicator that the next Democratic administration led by the president has failed and it is time to replace them with a Republican administration. However, this is not the case - the positive assessment of Barack Obama’s performance as president exceeded 50% throughout the year, amounting to 52% in October. 45% rated his work negatively. The positive rating was 15% among Republicans, 52% among independents and 91% among Democrats.
At the same time, Obama's assessments correspond to the average level of assessments of the work of all American presidents - 53% and are slightly higher than the assessments of past presidents at the end of their second term in office - 47%. Contrary to the tradition in which the outgoing president only “serves out” his term, losing support points - the so-called “lame duck”, Obama has gained additional popularity in recent months as president.
No matter how much Americans criticize the state of affairs in the country, only 19% believe that things are better in some other countries, although, as in many other countries, half (52%) believe that life was better in the past, although 46% expect better days to come.
National priorities at the start of the campaign
A year ago, at the beginning of the election marathon, Americans pointed to the following main problems that, first of all, the government had to solve in 2016 (Table 2).
Table 2: What issues would you like the government to work on in 2016? (five main problems, rating for each; in%)
| Terrorism | 34 |
| Healthcare | 31 |
| Immigration | 29 |
| Education | 25 |
| Unemployment | 24 |
It should be noted that the survey for this study was conducted in December 2015, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and California. Accordingly, terrorism and immigration took first place in the priorities for the authorities to address. Then, during the election campaign, the importance of the issues for the country changed significantly. Economic problems came first.
In general, the American individualistic nature requires one to evaluate one’s personal situation better than the situation in the country: “I’m OK, the country is going down the drain.” Therefore, in this election campaign, it was the state of the national economy that caused the greatest criticism - only 42% assessed it as “good” and 57% as “bad”, while the financial situation of their family was considered “good” by 66% and only 33% - "bad".
Accordingly, the tone of the campaign was set by economic concerns - stagnant, stagnant wages, especially for low-wage workers, high unemployment, especially for non-white ethnic groups, fears that in retirement they will not be able to maintain their current material level. For example, 46% of workers are dissatisfied that their salary has not increased over the past five years, a third believe that if they have to leave their job, they will receive less in a new place, 54% believe that they will not be able to live on their pension when they arrive. time.
A touchstone in polls during the campaign was the question of how people would cope if they received an unexpected $1,000 bill in the mail, what we call a “chain letter.” The answers are revealing: 36% would pay the bill immediately, 78% would arrange payment in installments, 10% would borrow money from a bank to pay; only 14% would ask for a loan to pay from relatives or friends, and 24% would not pay at all. That is, it turns out. that only a little more than a third of the population has $1,000 available for what is called a “rainy day.”
Main problems - tasks for the president
After all the campaign discussions and candidate debates on the eve of the election, voters defined “the most important problem facing the country” (Table 3).
