Is there a victorious strategy of the opposition in the elections in terms of authoritarian countries?

It has to be kept in mind that the world public opinion is paying careful attention to any developments in Russia. The point is that change or even relaxation of political regime in this country has an immediate after-effect on the destiny of bonds still fastening CIS countries together.

The so-called September regional elections of governors, deputies of local parliaments and four State Duma deputies came as no surprise to analysts; even better, they  engaged over-attention due to the secondary use of «Navalny strategy» that led to a partial success at the Mosgorduma election- 2019. This time, election results proved to be discouraging for the opposition: ruling «Yedinaya Rossiya» won in most 41 regions even despite the fact that it enjoys confidence just of 30%.

What is important to notice is that Navalny’s technology is surprisingly simple: to vote for a better candidate, whoever he may be, to thus steal votes for a ruling party candidate. The weakness of this method is explained as being due to the fact that purely symbolic victories are uncommon to take place at the secondary elections only.

This time, a Navalny’s follower – Xenia Fadeyeva became a member of Tomsk town council. Note that Navalny-recommended candidates won in 16 out of 27 districts of the town. Also, Navalny’s follower Sergey Boyko became a member of town council in Novosibirsk, Russia’s third largest town. And nothing else.

Guided by voting results, Pavel Lokshin (Die Welt, September 14, 2020) sums up that Navalny’s plan to challenge Putin in provinces did not work. He explained crashing results of the plan as being due to «world old» procedures -application of administrative resources, displacement of opposition candidates from elections, large-scale manipulations, including the voting outside of polling stations and prolongation of elections.

Added to this can be that the elections were held for three days, including at mobile and open polling stations. Note that this system tested at constitutional reform voting factors into election rigging, election monitors maintain.

This notwithstanding, Kremlin’s opportunities to control Russians discontent with the current situation are far from exhausted, Lokshin holds.

Let’s turn aside for a moment and get into details of Navalny’s poisoning by Kremlin. Thus, Matthias Gebauer (September 14, 2020, Der Spiegel) pointed out that the poisoning was carried out by means of modernized version of the well-known «Novichok» to conclude that «the more complex, newer and rarer is the chemical formula of poison, the more probable is the access to it through the Russian state apparatus only».

Another question arises: what accounts for Kremlin’s fear to take to such a radical measure (it was held that Navalny should have died during flight)? Can it be true that the whole mass media expanse, as the West sees it, should deal with the Russian policy only, especially as the point is about two figures – Vladimir Putin and Aleksey Navalny? It is hardly probable if not personal ambitions.

Let’s try another version: Navalny realized Achilles’ heel of the Russian leader: it is located far more than the Urals to embrace vast territories where the population, living under the control of «United Russia» Party notwithstanding, is underserviced by the Center; so the very name of «Moscow» is genericized in the region.

One cannot shut one’s eyes to the fact that there are ever growing protest actions 6,000 km away from Moscow – in Khabarovsk for the return of the governor arrested. The world public opinion is aware of the fact due to dimensions of the problem. Does anyone remember today that the Nenets Autonomous District spoke out against amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation at the referendum - 55, 25% of voters said «no». Is it possible to conclude that Moscow is gravely concerned about situations in the regions currently involved in Navalny’s opposition activities? Are there fears that other blacklisted political parties of the country will follow this path?

True, there is a great amount of work to be done yet by these parties and seek election of their own candidates. In considering that political changes are possible through moving «from the bottom»(facts corroborate this), the probability remains that many political actors of Russia will follow Navalny’s initiative.

Perhaps, for this to happen (Urals mountain crossing), it is important to transform the political expanse, unite and consolidate political parties, create interim coalition of parties of varied political platforms. Note that these processes are underway in European countries where the coalition rule is becoming the norm.

When adjusted for the fact that 25-40% of voters take part at authoritarian CIS countries, it is obvious that the crucial task of the new political forces is to draw electorate lost due to large-scale vote engineering..

As for Russia with its vast domain, many analysts believe that it s essential to decline from a universal domestic policy same for all territories and federal entities. For this to happen, it’d be appropriate to apply the practice and experience of regional and local laws based on real decentralization.

Let’s finally look at questions raised formerly:

Will A. Navalny’s voting technology be final following which the West will have to revise its attitude to technologies of authoritarian post-Soviet states? What can be proposed in return to oppose a rock-solid technology «election victory prior to election holding »?

A reply to the first question seems to be positive. Vaguely worded though, there are clear indications that the Belarus authorities have played the last trump by counting upon Russia and thus denying prevarication between Moscow and Brussels. Today’s solidarity between Russia and Belarus is possibly the last chance to prolong the authoritarian rule not only in these two countries but other CIS countries as well. Its future outlook is totally foreseeable due to the fact that the two leaders of the two countries are allying, not the two states.

It ought to be noted even in the infancy of restoration of authoritarianism in CIS countries the opposition demand elections to be held under the aegis of the United Nations Organization or other independent international organization. No demands of this sort are laid down today which is a warning sign of depletion of political potential both of the authority and the opposition.

To create an antidote, it is important to create a producer.