Excerpts of Presentations at the HRC. About our elections

Andrei Buzin, PhD in Law, an expert in election law. From 1993 to 2001 he held office as the election commission member at all six levels in an advisory capacity. Since 1999 - the chairman of the Inter-regional non-governmental association of voters. Since 2013 - the co-chairman of the movement ‘Golos’ Board  

On May 16, a meeting of the Council for Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (HRC) under the President of the Russian Federation was held concerning ‘Citizens participation in election observation process.’

I would like to present the excerpts of my speech at the 48th special meeting of the Council for Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, held on May 16, 2016, under the topic ‘Citizen Participation in the election observation process’.

Alas, I did not manage to say everything I wanted in 4 minutes, but the main points. It seems the audience heard me. At least, judging by its reaction.

1. Please, take into account that while I am talking about the elections, I will touch only major points, not because I cannot give an example, by contraries, there are too many of them. Moreover, I am short in time and I want to convey to the audience our organization vision of elections, as a result of my extensive election observation experience, monitoring its evolution over the last quarter of the century.
2. Moreover, please bear in mind that over those 27 years I had an opportunity to hold office as a member of election commissions of all levels, I was even elected as a chairman of one major commission, visited dozens of territorial commissions and hundreds of precincts. In addition, I have participated in dozens of court trials concerning electoral disputes, as well as in the process of drafting election related laws.
3. Since I have witnessed the 90s Elections and I have worked on all three editions of the Federal Law ‘On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights ...’, I have been carefully following the amendments to our election laws, taking into account the electoral practice. I even read the non-informative reports of some pseudo-non-governmental organizations established by the government to promote our pseudo-elections. I have something to compare it with.
4. The Russian Constitution stipulates that elections serve as a tool to arrange society (Article 3). Many countries do use this tool in respect to its purpose, although history tells us that there are other means of effective development of society. Now again, as in soviet times, elections do not play the role of such a tool, though it is used to legitimize the multiple re-establishment of current power. They do not conform to the values declared by the Constitution, nor international election standards, nor even the Russian legislation. So far, we cannot speak about the respect to electoral rights in our country, at least in a way stipulated by the Constitution.
5. With regard to the legislation, in the 2005 press conference organized by the Independent Institute of Elections, we, albeit with reservations, declared that the Russian laws are in general in line with international election standards. Unfortunately, since 2005, some radical changes were made - more than 80 laws were adopted, amending the Federal Law ‘On Basic Guarantees ...’. Therefore, currently there is no way we can talk about such compliance. The tighter restrictions are applied to passive suffrage, to the procedure of nomination and registration of candidates, the electoral system as a whole, some limitations in terms of campaigning were introduced that did not exist anywhere in the world, though extended the term of office of legislative institutions and the President. The most of the legislative amendments were opportunistic in nature, aimed at facilitating the preservation of current power.
6. In regard to legislation, the most significant impact on elections had amendments to the laws concerning political parties, polity and local government.
7. By applying reactionary election laws and exposing the built vertical of power - in fact the absence of separation of powers – dragging our country down, as electoral processes again degraded from a democratic tool to a ritual. Citizens feel that, respectively assessing our elections. The Western critics of our elections as well feel that. Now, even giving up explicit fraud, attributed to the period of 2007-2011 and many municipal elections, such elections cannot regain the trust.
8. There are systematic rather that sporadic flaws in our elections. And we do not speak about electoral fraud on the voting day, including the vote count, considering the efforts of observers to prevent it at the polling stations and the counter-focus of election propagandists, but about the engagement of administration in election processes as a political force with its own interests and resources, entrusted by the public. Such an involvement in fact undermines the nature of elections, aimed at the periodic change of power. The use of administrative resources is the most flagrant violation of election law worldwide, including Russia. In United States, as a result of a single case of fraudulent use of administrative resources the President faced an impeachment.
9. In Russia, benefiting from administrative resources for the sake of elections is absolutely widespread, moreover, it is almost perceived as a natural phenomenon. We do not notice anymore that election commissions are under strict supervision of local administration or even sometimes their executive powers are taken over. We perceive as natural processes the incoherent case-law concerning electoral disputes and differences in approach applied for verification of registration documents submitted by the parties and candidates. We do not notice anymore that commercial interests are represented by the state and municipal officials during the election campaign.    We do not question the fact that the police are at the illegitimate disposal of the administration agencies tasked to suppress the legitimate campaigning activities. We believe that business is under the pressure of government. What concerns elections, it is in particular important that we are accustomed to the media that is under the state control.
10. The Communist Party perpetually complains on the unequal access to the media coverage and always receives rather accurate CEC statistics on the equal volumes shared by different parties. In fact, it is a deceit, as a massive propaganda campaign in media is led by the main competitor in elections – the government. This campaign, perceived by election commissions and courts as ‘dissemination of information to the public’, is pertaining to the official runner-up in the elections – the quasi-party ‘United Russia’ and its pre-decided candidates. I would like to remind that the state controlled media agencies print and disseminate its persistent campaign materials at the expense of state budget. A consumer buying political materials pays for the officious commercials promoting such products. (A recent example of the newspaper ‘Sever Stolitsi’).
11. The moans of Communist Party and other parties concerning the unequal access to the media coverage are meaningless, as it is irretrievable without diversifying the media funding. This example reveals close election interconnection with other fields of polity and political system. Therefore, the election observation movement cannot avoid to eventually discuss the questions of the polity and political system.
12. The same can be said about the party system and civil society, as well as about the court and legislative power. The same can be said about our built-in vertical of the law enforcement system - Ministry of Internal Affairs, Investigative Committee, the Prosecutor's Office. Citizens are astonished by violations of law, by the way - sometimes with blood shed, as in the Zheleznadarozhniy the authorities cannot find and punish the perpetrators. In 2011, in the Syktyvkar City, the election commission forged 70% of the protocols, the prosecutor of the Komi Republic Mr. Panevezhskiy currently holds a seat in the Duma, as the court rejected even direct evidence proving criminal offence. In 2014, in the city of St. Petersburg, the evidence of a crime has been recorded in the official protocols of election commissions, but the prosecutor did not pursue a case on the ground of written evidence of the crimes. Such a behavior of law enforcement agencies is observed in many remoted areas of our country. What does it show: total incompetence in pursuing crime or is it a result of government intervention?
13. Election observation movement was induced by the State failure to comply with its obligation to ensure impartial elections. In a State that respects its duties, there is almost no need for election observation.
14. It should be noted that since 2012, with the replacement of top election expert at the highest level of administration the tactics of election campaigns have changed as well. Since then we have not observed any explicit fraud in Moscow, therefore we can assume that the number of explicit fraud cases will remain low as well in the upcoming federal election. We re-discover the methods that were used in the middle of 00s, invoking administrative resources in a delicate, semi-criminal way - denial of registration of candidates, obstruction of campaigning activities, securing advantages for certain candidates, campaigning under the guise of dissemination of information. However, it was raised to a new level, as a result of acquired experience and more reactionary legislation.
15. Therefore, in the upcoming election the election observation movement is going to mostly focus on the electoral processes taking place before the voting and vote count starts. This does not mean that the local administration is deterred from using the well-known outmoded criminal methods and that we will be fraud free in the future.
16. In conclusion I would like to draw attention to three particular questions. First, the reaction of those responsible to hold our elections to reintroduction of early voting (in relation to the upcoming election - in the form of absentee ballots). There is no other way to describe the behavior of certain authorities as a result of reintroduction of it as the Sabbat: neither the CC, nor the experts expected that in some regions the turnout of early voting would reach such heights that were ten times or even higher if compared to the previous elections. This is the result of the administrative impact resulting in forged turnout as an explicit violation of the principle of free elections.
17. Second, the composition and status of election commissions. The current election commissions, as well as the other state bodies depend on the state administration speaking about personnel as well as budget allocations. It is enough to mention that the majority of election commissions at middle and senior level are located in the state administration buildings, as the commission members are allowed to enter the building with ID. As long as the election commissions will not represent a conglomeration of diverse political forces, the only election runner-off will take advantage of such electoral resources.
18. Third, the issue of web cameras at polling stations. Evidently, a person who has taken a decision to massively install CCTV cameras, did not expect such a stunning effect. Moreover, the excuse of scarce resources for avoiding repetition of such an experiment reveals a fear, invoked by previous numerous video recordings capturing explicit fraud. I have no doubt that such an experiment will not be repeated, at least in the same manner as it was done before.