Explanatory blog post 1

An autopsy of managed democracy

Krastev and Holmes tackle the issue of Russia’s rigged elections that have seen Putin in office since 2000. The article also looks into an area that the lectures have touched; the idea that many countries may say that they are democracies and fit the basic criteria of being a democracy but are not democratic at all.

First and foremost when looking at the system of elections in Russia one would think that after having a leader in power for such a long time people would be less inclined to vote for him to rule for another term. However the article point out that even if the elections were not rigged Putin would still have won. Despite Russian voters knowing that Putin was a fraud they still voted for him because there was no alternative. This ‘one man race’ was (in its early stages) Putin’s key to guaranteeing success because people saw no other choice than to vote for the same man who had already lead them for so long. The question that is then raised is, if Putin is going to rig elections anyway why have them? As Krastev and Holmes point out, Putin’s Russia in no way is trying to resemble a democracy. They do not have elections that everyone knows are rigged so they can ‘pretend’ that they are democratic. They have elections so that everyone knows that Russia is Putin’s. Rigged elections are his way of showing that he has the power and he has the capacity to use it.

Rigged elections also help Moscow find out which local officials are doing their job properly and which aren’t. In regions where governors did not have full control over their region’s voting and United Russia did not receive the number of votes that they should have those governors were usually sacked. In this sense rigged elections work as a tool to fish out lower level officials and party members who maybe are not fulfilling their assigned duty. They almost work as Moscow’s check on these members while further emphasizing the party’s power not just over the population but over its members too.

One of the most interesting points raised by Krastev and Holmes is the fact that elections work as a symbol of unity and coherence. In reality Russia is fractured and disunited and more than half of Russian households are either no better off or are poorer then they were twenty years ago. Having regular elections (despite the fact that they are rigged) shows a sense of unity that people come together to vote for a government that they supposedly want. This idea of a coherent nationhood Krastev and Holmes say is more important to Russia then creating a perfect model of democracy.

Fascinatingly enough if rigged elections have done anything successfully it is to hide the fact that Putin doesn’t actually rule Russia very well or at all. Russian’s may not be exploited and there may also be no emphasis put on remaking the people either but instead they are being ignored. As pointed out earlier majority of Russian's are poorer then they were twenty years ago and Putin has done nothing to bridge this gap between the wealthy and the poor, whilst a large amount of the countries riches goes into the pockets of a few.

Many would have hoped that the protests of December 2011 and March 2012 were a pinnacle changing point but it ended as quickly as it started. Putin in my opinion remains strong and shows no signs of going anywhere regardless of what Russian's think of him. Rigged elections will be the key tool that will help maintain this power because, firstly Russian's will see no alternative but also because it doesn't matter how people vote. The likelihood of there being any turnover in office is little to none and that is typical of the authoritarian regime that Putin has created. 

300163191

https://login.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/connect?session=svr0Q0Tizht12DPu&url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v023/23.3.krastev.pdf