I thought the days were long gone when I would publish Russian dissidents in my global newspaper network, as I did 25 years ago, but apparently not. Here, chess champion Garry Kasparov takes a penetrating swipe at Vladimir Putin's managed democracy.
MOSCOW -- The meaning of last Sunday's Russian parliamentary elections is not to be found in the results. There was never any doubt that President Vladimir Putin's ruling United Russia party would take an overwhelming majority. United Russia, with the sitting president at the top of its list, enjoyed every imaginable advantage, both legal and illegal. Opposition groups, including our own Other Russia coalition, were denied access to the ballot by meticulous new election laws designed for exactly that purpose.
The alternatives left for voters on Sunday were mostly Putin supporters or parties that had made deals not to oppose Putin if they were allowed to stay in the parliament or on the ballot.
In the first category, count "A Just Russia," whose first move after the election was to propose an extension of Putin's presidency. In the second category are the Communists, who received, or you might prefer "were allowed," 11.6 percent of the vote (around 20 percent, according to an independent count), for 57 of 450 Duma seats. This low number angered Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, who rumors say was promised at least 90 seats by the Kremlin for his loyalty and is now making charges of election irregularities. I hate to say it, Gennady, but I told you so.
Busloads of voters moved from one polling station to the next. There was a dramatic increase in absentee ballots (many handed out to employees with clear instructions), and some stations reported more ballots than voters. As the joke going around has it, the difference between democracy and the Putin system is like the difference between two chairs: one leather one electric.
Perhaps the most damning of all are the official statistics in places like Chechnya and Dagestan where there was little monitoring. With an outlandish 99.5 percent voter turnout, 99 percent of Chechen votes went to United Russia. Do not forget this is a party led by Putin, the author of the second Chechen war that razed the Chechen capital Grozny to the ground less than a decade ago.
My wife commented darkly that the only ones who didn't vote in Chechnya were those who died on election day. (Or perhaps they voted twice.) As usual, the game is given away by lackeys who are too eager to please their Kremlin masters. One can only imagine what the United Russia bosses think of Hugo Chavez losing by a measly one percent on the same day. Amateur!
Meanwhile, despite the absence of real alternatives on the ballot and with all the chicanery included, United Russia barely topped 50 percent in St. Petersburg and Moscow. It's no coincidence that the residents of these cities have much greater access to news not provided by the Kremlin thanks to greater Internet penetration and Ekho of Moscow, the one radio station where all views are still heard.
It was a clear indication that Putin considered these elections important when he gave several frenzied speeches to get out the vote.
The vicious language he used could barely called coded as he warned against "enemies within" and "jackals" supported by the West. It was less Russian than what we might call Putinese, with a vintage Austrian-German accent. A week before the elections, our peaceful Other Russia march was broken up by riot police and a dozen of my supporters and I spent five days in jail after a trial that would have made Kafka blush. (Among other things, the charge I was jailed on didn't appear in the arresting officers' handwritten testimony, appearing magically in the typed court version.)
Why bother making such an effort when the Kremlin's control is apparently so absolute already? First we should recall that Stalin held elections in 1937 during The Terror. The results on Sunday weren't in any doubt either, confirming our return to the rule of an all-powerful single state party. But the elections were important to Putin's regime for several reasons.
Putin's close relationship with Western leaders serves as a guarantee to his ruling oligarchs back home that their money is safe. Were he to discard the last vestiges of democracy too blatantly, this cozy situation might end. We can only wait and see if this latest charade is enough to keep Europe and the EU nations from finally taking action, such as turning the G-7 back into what it originally stood for: seven great industrial democracies.
The first indications are bad. Nicolas Sarkozy touted himself as a tough guy but appears to have gone weak in the knees after a few drinks with Putin. The French president wasted no time in calling his counterpart to congratulate him on his big win. Putin watches these signals from the West carefully, looking for signs of any real pressure. Most comments weren't favorable, especially in the media, but how much danger could there be if Sarkozy and old buddy Tony Blair called him?
The other purpose of the Kremlin campaign was to provide the regime with pseudo-democratic cover for whatever machinations they come up with to keep their hold on power after the March 2 presidential elections. Putin cannot run again, or at least the constitution says he cannot and he has promised not to change it -- if you wish to value the promise of a KGB lieutenant-colonel. After eight years blessed with record oil prices and a compromising West distracted by the "war on terror," the Putin regime has reached its crisis.
The Kremlin's presidential candidate must be named soon. Should it be a feeble puppet, soon leading -- by "popular" demand or perhaps a health emergency -- to Putin's return? Or can they find someone foolish enough to take the blame when the neglected Russian infrastructure and economy finally collapse? Or will they change the system, eviscerating the presidency so Putin can take the power with him to a new role?
After Putin's friendly visit to Iran in October, I wondered if he was considering a new title for himself, one above the petty responsibilities of Prime Minister or even the old grandeur of the General Secretary of the Party. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Putin?