Vitaliy Kovin: Realists’ Forum

I have taken part in the Third Forum of Citizen Observers, which was held in Yaroslavl. Based on my overall impression, the observation movement has experienced a significant progress over the last year, due to the professionalism and competence of citizen observers that have grown substantially, as supported by the following arguments:

• The movement itself has noticeably expanded: 35 regions (including the regions with the so-called ‘specific electoral culture’, such as Dagestan and Tatarstan), more than a dozen independent initiative groups and movements, activists of different ages (not only young people, as previously they were predominant, now you can meet activists much older than me), diverse views (from classical liberals to classical communists) and various nationalities;
• Mastering a wide variety of skills and techniques prerequisite for processing video data, open source data, statistical data, working with IT-technologies. It is no coincidence that the representative of the company developing new optical scan voting systems participated in the Forum. He was not simply present, but worked closely with the participants and spoke with them in the same language. Moreover, such methods of data analysis have been developed, sometimes even from scratch, that it is impossible to challenge the findings obtained. The results are so evident that courts, law enforcement bodies or election commissions have nothing to do but simply forbid it. For example, it can announce that video recordings from security cameras installed in the expense of public funds were ‘inadmissible evidence’;
• Exhaustive knowledge of electoral and other legislation, its gaps, enables the experts not only to criticize certain regulations, but also to propose amendments. It is no coincidence that the Forum participants together with the CEC representatives had a very detailed discussion on the pros and cons of abolishing absentee voting.
• Aspiration and readiness to facilitate constructive cooperation with election commissions. Many participants of the Forum have joined various advisory councils to election commissions, have been appointed to TECs and PECs, they have contributed to the training for election commission members and observers. Even a ‘Club of TEC members’ have been established, where the club members can share their experience;
• Basically, a new focus emerged: public control over the election commissions: their composition, public spending, the comprehensiveness and promptness of information they publish ...
• The self-organization and cooperation between different groups and movements of observers have improved: they run joint missions, training, prepare methodology, develop election observation standards;
• The understanding that more cohesive cooperation with the media is indispensable; moreover, the first positive experiences have already been ensued;
• Gradually, and this is very important, the emphasis shifts from observation of the polling day processes to citizen monitoring of the entire pre-election campaign and even the inter-election period. There are some ideas to launch a wide ‘public campaign’ to observe whether the principle of equality of candidates and parties is respected, the misuse of state and public resources in the interests of certain candidates and parties, pressure on voters, etc.

It is no coincidence that on both Forum days, the representatives of the CEC (the member Kinev, etc.) were not just present, addressing audience with welcoming speeches, but they were also actively engaged in discussions, joined working groups.

In general, the Third Forum appeared to be a ‘forum of realists’, as it was preceded by the ‘emotionally critical’ Thirst Forum and the ‘pessimistic’ Second Forum. In general, the observers’ community became more pragmatic. The majority understands their actual possibilities, the situation in the regions and the entire country, politically restrained election commissions and courts. Therefore, we are capable to shed a light on specific problems, to set and propose specific tasks to the authorities following technocratic procedures, so that they are induced to willy-nilly accept them.

Vitaliy Kovin,

Member of the Movement ‘Golos’, Political Scientist, PhD in History, Senior Researcher at the Perm Scientific Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.