MOSCOW—Tens of thousands of Russians took to the street last weekend in protest over voter fraud allegations in the country’s parliamentary elections. Carnegie Moscow Center experts analyze the election results and what the public response might mean for the country’s future.
According to Dmitri Trenin, the Putin-Medvedev swap announced in September was perceived as an insult. Putin’s return—even if expected—came as a shock to many among the already discontented constituencies, agrees Maria Lipman. “The government, aware of the quickly souring mood, rushed to get out the desired vote.” The harassment of activists and election observers, as well as cyber-attacks against websites attempting to expose voter fraud, “generated an unprecedented anti-government mobilization.”
Alexey Malashenko notes that Moscow’s Triumfalnaya, Manezhnaya, and Pushkinskaya Squares will not lead to a revolution like those in the Arab world or, a few years ago, in several post-Soviet countries. “At the very least, keeping the momentum would require effective organizations that do not exist at the moment.” Maria Lipman also underscores that in Russia, the protesters know who stole the election, but they do not have a party that they want or a candidate that they like.
Sergey Aleksashenko points out that the results of the Duma elections will not change the investment climate in Russia since United Russia retains a monopoly on power and is unlikely to make significant changes. But Dmitri Trenin forecasts that with the sudden uncertainty, some investors already in Russia might reconsider, and those planning to start investing will pause. Trenin also says more government spending is likely in the short term to curry favor with various sectors of the electorate. To get the funding for that, oil and gas sector companies, and metals producers, will probably be taxed more heavily.
Looking ahead, Maria Lipman says Putin’s charisma is dispelled, his power is weakened, and his political monopoly will continue to wane. Nikolay Petrov underscores that for the first time in twelve years, Putin does not hold the initiative and is forced to act under the influence of external factors. According to Dmitri Trenin, the situation is open-ended and Vladimir Putin faces a choice between “hard” and “soft” lines, and he may try either or both. Natalia Bubnova concludes that what will come out of the unfair elections and the public indignation remains to be seen. Yet the public outcry against the unfairness of the election is a step in the right direction, marking a nascent civil society.