Witnessing another Putin victory

Photo: The Presidential Press and Information Office (CC) commons.wikimedia.org

In my interviews with experts and ordinary Russians, the common theme that emerged for this election was the aggressive policy to mobilise voters. The purpose of the strategy, as one of my interviewees admitted, was not to influence the result (which has long been predetermined), but to contribute to the triumphant image of the winner. In the end, a 70 per cent victory with the support of 70 million voters looks much better than a victory with a low turnout. But the pre-election agitation was not the only method used to secure a satisfying result.

Red October

In Moscow I meet Irina Yatsenko from the foundation For Human Rights on Saturday, a day before the election. It wasn’t easy to catch her and when we finally meet late in the evening at the Komsomolsky Square, the city, immersed in election silence, is far from calm. Yatsenko explains that for the members of the opposition who enrolled as election monitors, the day before the vote is one of the busiest in the election cycle. Monitors are completing their training, getting acquainted with the common violation methods and forming teams. Yatsenko herself is one of the volunteers.

“If it is possible, I will create a list of voting irregularities, as they will surely take place. Taking pictures or filming is not always allowed, although according to the rules, this is our right,” Yatsenko says. According to her, election observers are often seated in places with little view over the voting process and the police, officially tasked with ensuring order, often assist or look the other way when infringements do take place.

As Yatsenko explains, the list of possible irregularities under the eye of the police is long. “It would be difficult to name all the options, but the most visible ones include ballot stuffing, when ballots are thrown into the box earlier, before the polling station opens, or later, after its closure.” The so-called carousels are another method to influence election results. Organised busses of voters are driven to cast their votes from one station to another in exchange for money. It is no secret who they vote for. “There are situations which bring to mind comedies or theatre of the absurd,” Yatsenko continues. “Imagine the shock and disbelief on the face of a man who wants to vote, shows his passport, and then learns that he has already voted today.”

On the election day, Golos – a movement for the defence of voters’ rights – set up a temporary call centre in an old chocolate factory called Krasnyi Oktiabr, which in English means Red October. I receive a message with a map and address of the office right before the election. As Golos members explain to me later, the last minute invitation is due to security reasons. Earlier disclosure of the address could risk police intervention.

Volunteers collecting reports on voting violations in the polling stations have little time to speak with me. They spend the whole day with their ears glued to the phones. When I finally find a moment in-between calls for a chat, one tells me about the irregularities already registered. Ballot stuffing, carousels, buying and stealing votes, and attempts to impede the monitoring process have all been too common, just as Yatsenko had predicted the day before.

Selfies and group pictures of people at the ballot box flood Russian social media. When I ask about the purpose of such an eager display of interest in the country’s political life, one of the Golos volunteers bursts out laughing. “Some of them want to show that they have fulfilled their civic duty, others need proof for their employer that they had voted. In some workplaces, especially those financed from the state budget, there is an unofficial requirement to vote. Sometimes, the failure to cast a vote can have serious consequences, including being fired.”

As I was leaving the office, Golos had already registered 3,000 cases of voting irregularities. Before the end of the day, the number will rise to 3,245.

Crimean spring

According to Russian law, a presidential election should take place on the second Sunday of the month in which the president was formerly chosen. It therefore means that the 2018 election should have taken place on March 11th, rather than the 18th. According to the official explanation of the Federation Council members, Andrey Klishas and Anatoliy Shirokov and Duma deputy Mikhail Sheremet, the date change was caused by Women’s Day, which is a national holiday in Russia.

However, many Russians interpret the change as Vladimir Putin’s attempt to remind Russians about the greatest achievement of his third term: the annexation of Crimea, which took place on March 18th 2014. A commemoration concert organised on the Manezhnaya Square, titled “Russia. Crimea. Sevastopol”, confirms that, despite the fact that not all the votes have been counted, Putin knows that everything is going according to plan. He suddenly appears on stage to thank the audience.

“Dear friends, thank you. Thank you for your support. Thank you for this result. You are our team. I am a member of your team. All those who have voted today, make up this team. I think this is a reflection of appreciation of all that has been done in the recent years,” Putin says to the audience gathered during the concert. “Success awaits us! My friends, it is very important to nurture this solidarity. It will allow us to continue moving forward.”

Despite the freezing temperatures (-15 degrees Celsius), crowds of Russians, some wearing white jumpers and vests with Putin’s name on them, wave national flags and chant the name of their leader. Manoeuvring through the crowd and leaving the square takes longer than it did to get in and pass through police controls. In the evening, national TV broadcast experts and political scientists discuss the results live from the studios and assess the chances of other candidates. They analyse Putin’s victory in depth, openly noting that they themselves supported his candidature.

During one programme, a Polish election observer (possibly invited to the studio by mistake) takes his chance to comment on the results: “On the one hand, I feel sorry for Russia. But on the other, I envy you. I feel sorry that the election looks the way it does. At the same time, if you manage to introduce democracy here you will have a reason to be proud.” His comment is soon drowned out and forgotten. A graph shown on the bottom of the TV screen is constantly changing. Next to Putin’s name, the numbers continue to steadily rise while the other candidates are falling behind. 

Putin as a symbol

The following day in Moscow is not much different than the day before. Walls and utility poles still bear the signs pointing to the polling stations. The cold sun is still shining and the metro is as crowded as ever. Newspapers, radio and television all announce the crushing victory of Vladimir Putin, who has received a record 76 per cent of the vote. He will remain president for another six-year term. The announcement comes despite that fact that not all the ballots have been counted.

Information on voting irregularities, invalid ballots and other violations are still being collected, but it is clear that they will not change the result. During a press conference organised by the Golos organisation, representatives repeat what was already clear: the election took place, there were irregularities, the police had aided in breaking election rules, the election was clearly not free and fair, and it was not conducted in line with the Russian constitution.

Yet, Roman Udot, who has been organising election monitoring for years, states with a bitter smile that this election was much calmer and more transparent than previous ones: “We should positively assess the decline in some turnout figures, as compared to previous elections, which caused serious doubts among some observers,” he says. Despite some improvements, however, the election has not met international standards. A statement on the Golos website reiterates this claim. “Recognising the undoubted formal leadership of the winning candidate, we regret to state that we cannot recognise these elections as truly honest – fully in line with the constitution, the laws of the Russian Federation and international election standards because the results followed an unfree, unequal and uncompetitive election campaign.”

On my last day in Moscow, I still try to understand how Putin managed to hypnotise the Russian public to be elected for a fourth term. There is no doubt that his victory cannot be explained with forgery and election violations alone. I saw with my own eyes the reactions of thousands of Russians, who ecstatically cheered Putin during his speech on Manezhnaya Square. These emotions were real, not staged.

During an interview with Dmitry Glukhovsky, a journalist and writer known for his critical view of the authorities and acute analysis of the Russian political scene, he tells me: “On the one hand, people like a bull challenging the US, but on the other, if you ask people if they are happy with what is going on in the country, they will answer no.” Glukhovsky argues that Putin is not seen as a human, and not even as a politician. “It is an illusion,” he continues. “A figure. A symbol. Putin does not conduct any public policy. He does not promise anything to anyone. His narrative is based on mythology.”

According to Glukhovsky, Putin gains sympathy by pretending to be close to people, making gaffes or telling awkward jokes, but people know little about him. This is why it is so difficult to assess him as a politician. “Any analysis of his actions or political decisions is momentarily being misinterpreted or ridiculed,” he explains. “When it is confirmed by some political clown, then they are being taken even less seriously.”

Glukhovsky talks about a permanent crisis, the lack of self-respect which has been ingrained in the Russian national character together with the trauma related to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Interpreting reality through the prism of grounded myths and archetypes, longing for the fallen empire and an emotional vision of its return is something that Putin exploits. He understands how strongly it resonates with the Russians.

Translated by Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska

Wiktoria Bieliaszyn is a Polish journalist focusing on Russia. She writes for Krytyka Polityczna.  

Russia election 2018, Vladimir Putin