The Iron Poll Curtain
by Vivekananda Nemana
If a visitor from the Soviet Union were to travel forward in time to today, he wouldn't recognize his own country. Modern Russia is remarkably different from the Soviet Union of years past. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, the economy has soared, stability has been restored, and according to CNNMoney.com, Moscow has become the world's most expensive city.
But all the accomplishments come at a severe price. Putin has toughened the government and dramatically restrained freedoms after the country nearly fell apart under former president Boris Yeltsin. The press has been silenced, opposition has been stifled, and recent elections were far from 'free.' In last December's parliamentary elections, people not in support of Putin's party, United Russia, were duly threatened or punished.
I cannot proceed further without first mentioning that I place a high premium on individual liberties. Not everybody sees it this way, however. The Russian people, who lead far more comfortable lives now than they ever did under his predecessors, do not seem to mind this tough regime. According to public opinion surveys by the Levada center, Putin's approval rating in Russia was 81% in 2007, and since 1999 never dipped below 65%.
I'm not denying Putin's legitimacy as a leader or his economic shrewdness. But I'd like to know why such harsh tactics against political opposition, tactics disconcertingly reminiscent of the Soviet Union, are being used when Putin's approval rating is legitimately so high.
The New York Times published an article in February that detailed bullying tactics used in the town of Nizhny Novgorod for the December elections. Factory workers were promised punishment if they did not vote for United Russia. School children were threatened with poor grades if they did not attend "Children's Referendums" at polling sites, to ensure that parents would attend and vote for the ruling party. Volunteers for an opposition party received menacing phone calls that said they and their families would be hurt if they did not stop working for the opposition.
Such violations of electoral freedoms do not end at Novgorod. Human Rights Watch acknowledged deteriorating human rights condition during the Russian elections along with difficulty for international election monitoring missions. Its report on the situation indicates that an opposition candidate in the city of Dagestan was shot dead just weeks before the elections, and that protesters were detained in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The same report states that "freedom of speech attacks" are also a sad part of Russian political life. In the city of Ingushetia, for example, Russian police arrested and brutally beat three journalists and a human rights activist just a few months ago.
Moreover, the state-owned Russian television networks rarely offer any broadcast time for political opponents, making campaigning very difficult. In a Christian Science Monitor op-ed, independent Russian politician Vladimir Ryzhkov wrote that in today's world, "He who is not on TV might as well be dead."
All these actions point directly to an impediment of political opposition. As the obvious representative of the ruling party Putin should be accountable for the deeds that occur in its name. According to human rights groups, the killings, the threats, and the arrests are just examples of larger trends of bullying at the polls, trends which Putin should denounce. Instead, he has encouraged such anti-democratic behavior with legislation that centralizes power, making it harder for opposition parties to compete in the Parliamentary system.
Putin has raised the threshold for capturing seats in Parliament from five percent of the national vote to seven percent, making it far more difficult for small parties to win any seats at all. And, because the election system switched to proportional voting from representational voting in 2004, locally popular parties and independents have an even tougher time winning seats.
Although Putin himself was not able to contest for President in December's election, it is well known that he intends to remain in charge as Prime Minister. So whether or not Putin is the name on the ticket, United Russia still very much remains Putin's Party.
According to the Times article, Putin justifies these actions as being necessary for fortifying the Russian economy, claiming that the government cannot place its full efforts in improving the economy if it must worry about opposition.
But remember, Putin still has a magnificently high popularity rating, one that most western leaders could only dream about. So what real purpose do the brutish intimidation and violence tactics against opposition actually have? Political opposition is key to a well-functioning democracy; no amount of material gain will ever offset the right of the people to dissent. In Russia there may not be many dissenters, but those few deserve to have a say.
Call me an idealist, but I'd rather have my voice than a new videophone, any day.
