CC BY
37ется утопией. Поэтому выборные системы различаются в зависимости от условий (культурных, экономических и т. д.). Российское общество и государство ее еще только формируют. Этот процесс далек от завершения.
R. Baker
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN POLITICAL ELECTIONS
While studying political science in Tambov, Russia I found the differences in the campaigning and election processes between the United States and Russia to be the most intriguing. Although elections play a role in the larger debate over what constitutes a democracy, some of the finer points of the election process were most interesting. There are many similarities between U. S. and Russian political campaigns but different rules in the two countries create a few notable differences.
A part of the election process that the U. S. shares with Russia is equitable allocation of time in the media. Candidates are assured access to equal amounts of advertisements as well as editorial coverage. Any conflict of interest is also secured against in both countries. Candidates in the U. S. put their assets in a blind trust. In Russia candidates must take a vacation from their jobs if it would interfere with the campaigning process.
The first major difference regards fund-raising by candidates in elections. In the United States the candidates are given some funds by the state but the majority of their funds come from individual donations and their own personal wealth. Although there are some rules and limits surrounding fund-raising, the candidates are still able to raise and spend millions of dollars on their campaign through ‘soft money’ and other sly machinations. In Russia the campaigning funds are more strictly provided by the government, usually through the electoral commission. Fascinatingly, candidates in Russia are by law not allowed to use their personal wealth in the campaign.
The large amount of campaign money raised by candidates in the U. S. impacts the nature of their campaigns greatly. Candidates are free to travel around their district, state, or nation giving speeches and attending functions with the hope of getting the media’s attention so they can reach a wider audience. Candidates also spend a great deal buying television advertisements to promote their image, their platform, and to attack the opposition candidates.
I believe the limited amount of funding available for political candidates in Russia prevents the kind of campaign-related spending seen in the United States. It seems that the equal amount of money given to each candidate for campaigning, and the restrictions put on private money, would at least theoretically allow for a fair race financially. Each candidate should have enough money to present their merits and their platform for office but would not have excessive funds for attacking candidates through the media. No candidate would have any advantage over another regardless since the system in Russia keeps the financial spending in relative equilibrium.
This is all in theory. In practice, however, it seems that candidates in Russia are forced to find alternative ways to promote their candidacy without technically spending their personal funds on campaign activities. Obviously those that are already well-known have a great advantage over those that are not in the public eye. Of the local public officials our group met in Tambov all of them had been well-known for many years before they sought public office. It seems especially difficult in Russia to succeed through a grass-roots campaign if it does not have significant federal backing to begin with, which of course nullifies it from being a grass-roots campaign.
Another option is to get media attention for doing something that is not directly related to the campaign. I noticed the political officials in Russia often referred to their charity work. Successfully pulling off large events that associate the candidate with providing help to or caring about children, the elderly, or the needy add to the candidates’ good image. The candidates may also advertise the amount of jobs created or taxes paid by their businesses to show how much they help the community. To an American this is somewhat odd in that Russians are clearly publicizing their observance of the
law as some special attribute that makes them better as a political candidate. Faithfully paying your taxes should not be a large selling point in Russian elections at the local level but it seemed to me that it was.
A second notable difference between electoral processes in the two nations is the role of the political party. On the local level in the U. S. candidates receive funds from the national or state party. Candidates also often receive endorsements from more recognizable party members who are active at the national level. The president often spends his time helping fellow party members with their campaigns in the run-up to the election season. In Russia the party system operates differently and seems to not be of much help to local candidates during elections.
A candidate in Russia may garner similar support as a candidate in the U. S. would for simply being associated with a major party. However, to the Russian candidate the party is little more than a name that the public recognizes. The party does not fund the candidate’s campaign and the party leaders are not obligated to endorse fellow party members. President Putin is not even a member of the party that supports him. Therefore, it seems to me that on the local level the party could not play a very great role in the election process. The individuals are elected on their own popularity without any tangible support from the party they are associated with, other than perhaps simply providing some added residual support if they are associated with the ‘party of power.’
Although there are many similarities in democracies across the world when it comes to the actual campaigns, I would argue that the small differences in election rules have huge consequential effects on the outcomes of campaigns that put public officials in office. It appears that the laws regarding elections in Russia were written with great concern for equality. However, laws do not always produce in practice what they proclaim in theory. The political officials that we met in Russia were all among the upper echelon of society before they were elected into office. They have found a way to use their personal money and prestige to support their political aspirations
without technically campaigning in the way we Americans understand campaigning.
The party system that has evolved over the last 13 years in Russia only reinforces the role of the individual in elections. As I said, the party does not significantly support candidates in local elections monetarily or through endorsements. For this reason candidates are not forced to adopt an ideology or a plan of action that corresponds to the party’s platform. Therefore, the individual candidate’s popularity remains a greater asset in getting elected than his or her potential plan for governing once elected. Some could argue this is the case in America as well but it seemed much more severe to me in Russia. Party affiliation at the local level literally seemed like a throw-away concession, done as a mere formality but holding little real political significance.
Even though US election laws do not provide for equal amounts of funding for candidates and do not provide any funding to small political parties, somehow individuals are still able to rise from relative obscurity and get elected into public office. Despite Americans’ complaints about the negative atmosphere of campaigns and all the personal attacks on candidates that are shown in advertisements, perhaps the system works well enough. The money that buys these advertisements also affords unknown candidates the opportunity to present their ideology and their views on the major issues. The party system also forces the candidates to choose an ideology. Therefore, citizens have the ability to pick a representative based on the political issues that are important to them.
Our system, in short, always further institutionalizes the concept of a party-system based on distinct ideological leanings. This should be an important goal for any developing democracy. It should only be a point of concern for Russia, since it considers itself a consolidated democracy already, that at the local level this institutionalization is far from accomplished and there appears to be no current trends or trends on the horizon that would indicate the system will move from its present personality-cult mentality.
А. И. Кочетов
ЭЛЕКТОРАЛЬНЫЕ СТРАТЕГИИ РОССИЙСКИХ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ПАРТИЙ
На настоящий момент в России функционируют более 40 организаций, официально зарегистрированных Министерством юстиции в качестве политических партий. Рекомендую читателям попытаться вспомнить хотя бы половину из них. Ясно, что даже названия целого ряда подобных организаций незнакомы широким слоям населения. В этой связи допустимо выражение: «Единая Россия, КПРФ, ЛДПР, Родина и остальные». Оно может означать наличие четких позиций и стратегий лишь у упомянутых организаций. Позиции «остальных», на мой взгляд, не являются столь явно выраженными.
Попытка определить некие общие особенности стратегий организаций, составляющих «думскую четверку», дает следующие результаты.
1. Существенной объединяющей чертой стратегий указанных организаций выступает определение пути развития России, вектора движения. В подтверждение отмечу, что КПРФ и в настоящий момент продолжает борьбу за социалистический путь развития России. На выборах в США, в противовес, кандидат в Президенты и его консультанты не считают возможным указывать в программе необходимость ликвидации Сената или смену формы административно-территориальной структуры государства. Победа демократической или республиканской партии означает лишь выделение ряда отраслей экономической или социальной жизни в качестве приоритетных, не более того. В России до последнего времени, пусть и зачастую в обывательской среде, звучали реплики о возможности коммунистического реванша.
2. Произошло существенное слияние понятий «политический лидер» и «политическая партия». Лицом партии выступает ее лидер. Смена или потеря лидера может быть тождественной политическому самоубийству организации. Так, несмотря на регулярные заявления лидера ЛДПР Владимира Жириновского о
