In July, information appeared that Roskomnadzor was blocking sites with calls not to go to elections or spoil ballots for extremism. During the election races, such calls had been made before, but no sanctions followed. Why is it different this time?
WHAT BALLOTS ARE CONSIDERED INVALID?
The Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in Referendums of Citizens of the Russian Federation” and other election laws do not contain separate articles with grounds for invalidating ballots. As a general rule, ballots are considered invalid if it is impossible to determine the will of the voter.
The Fundamental Guarantees Law provides two grounds for invalidating ballots:
there are no marks on the ballot (the choice of candidate has not been made);
there are more marks on the ballot than required by law (for example, if the law requires only one candidate or party to be chosen, but two or more positions are marked on the ballot).
Of course, there is no point in throwing an empty ballot into the ballot box out of protest: when counting votes, a tick may appear in the right place in a matter of seconds.
After the elections, a whole wave of photographs of spoiled ballots appears on the Internet: someone writes their messages to the government leadership (in the most unflattering terms), someone draws something on the entire ballot that bears little resemblance to the usual “tick” or “cross”, someone tears newsletters. Some take the forms with them. There are even such propaganda posters online: “I’ll take the ballot with me! Fuck them, not my voice!”
Despite the fact that the law does not provide for liability for taking a ballot outside the polling station, at the polling stations themselves there is often a warning that such actions are prohibited. At one time, heated debates broke out in the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation about whether to establish responsibility for the removal of a ballot. For example, Vladimir Churov was in favor of establishing a ban on the removal of ballots. However, there was no consensus on the need to introduce liability. As a result, there is no official ban and no responsibility.
An invalid ballot must be distinguished from a spoiled one. A ballot that has already been placed in the ballot box may be declared invalid. If a voter accidentally ticks the wrong place or ticks several boxes by mistake, he can contact the election commission to replace the damaged ballot. Spoiled ballots are canceled and taken into account separately in the protocol. To replace damaged ballots, forms are printed with a reserve.
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGED BALLOTS?
If the law does not provide for liability for deliberate damage to a ballot, it is logical to assume that there is no liability for calls to tear up ballots or take them with oneself. Indeed, the law does not directly prohibit calling for such actions. However, practice took a different path.
In 2014, before the elections for the governor of St. Petersburg, deputy Oksana Dmitrieva called on her supporters to spoil ballots in order to prevent Georgy Poltavchenko from being elected in the first round of elections. Thus, she proposed to protest against the unfair elections for which she was not registered as a candidate. For these calls, Dmitrieva was accused of “petty political hooliganism,” and deputy Vitaly Milonov even turned to the Prosecutor General’s Office to check Dmitrieva’s words for extremism. In his opinion, Dmitrieva “maliciously undermines the constitutional foundations of the state, interferes with the democratic process of expression of the will of citizens and undermines trust in the authorities” and her actions can be qualified under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (inciting hatred or enmity). Probably, then extremism was not found in the calls to spoil ballots. Now everything is different.
In July of this year, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, several Internet resources were blocked that posted materials calling for a boycott of the elections. On the Roskomnadzor website the blocking is justified as follows: “The publications contain materials of a propaganda nature with the aim of popularizing among the Russian population the idea of boycotting the elections to the State Duma. In addition to agitating citizens to boycott the elections, the indicated resources coordinated the actions of citizens to organize protests carried out in violation of the established procedure. Activities to organize the disruption of elections to the lower house of parliament undermine the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, according to which the highest direct expression of the power of the multinational people of the Russian Federation is a referendum and free elections.”
Here it is necessary to distinguish between two types of actions: calling for a boycott of elections and coordinating actions to organize unauthorized protests.
According to Article 15.3 Federal Law “On Information, information technology and on the protection of information" Roskomnadzor may block sites that contain information containing calls for mass riots, implementation of extremist activities, participation in mass (public) events held in violation of the established order. Therefore, if the blocked sites actually contained calls for participation in unauthorized election protests, then the blocking is legal.
Another question is whether the call for a boycott of the elections is extremism. There are also questions: where is the line between calls for a boycott of elections and “activities to organize the disruption of elections,” and what does all this have to do with spoiling ballots?
According to the law on extremism, extremist activity is:
violent change of the foundations of the constitutional system and violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation;
obstruction of citizens' exercise of their voting rights and the right to participate in a referendum or violation of the secrecy of voting, coupled with violence or the threat of its use;
obstruction of lawful activities government agencies, local government bodies, election commissions, public and religious associations or other organizations, associated with violence or the threat of its use;
public calls for the implementation of these acts;
organization and preparation of these acts, as well as incitement to their implementation.
Incitement in the criminal legal sense is the inducement of another person to commit a crime by persuasion, bribery, threat or other means. An instigator is an accomplice to a crime. However, if the legislation establishes separate liability for public calls to commit a crime, then a special composition is applied. It remains to be established whether the boycott of elections can be considered a violent change in the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, or obstruction of citizens’ exercise of voting rights, or obstruction of the work of election commissions, combined with violence or the threat of its use.
What is boycotting elections? We will assume that this is a refusal of an individual citizen to go to the polls, or it is a turnout at the elections and damage to the ballot, as well as a turnout at the elections and the appropriation of the ballot. In any case, the citizen simply does not use his voice. Such an act can be committed either by action or by inaction, but there is no talk of any violence here. As we noted above, in Russia there is no compulsory turnout for elections: it is a citizen’s personal decision whether to vote or not to vote. Damaging ballots is also an expression of a citizen’s opinion, his disagreement with the government’s policies, a reflection of the fact that there is no one to vote for or it is pointless. This means that boycotting elections by a specific citizen is not punishable. Boycotting elections by a group of citizens by prior conspiracy is also not punishable. Theoretically, calls to commit this non-punishable (non-criminal, non-offending) act also cannot be punished.
Calls to boycott elections are one of the types of election campaigning. The rules for campaigning are established by Article 56 of the Law on Basic Guarantees of Citizens' Electoral Rights. In particular, propaganda materials should not contain calls to commit extremist acts, they should not justify or justify extremism. Campaigning that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred, humiliating national dignity, promoting the exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens based on their attitude to religion, social, racial, national, religious or linguistic affiliation, as well as campaigning during which propaganda and public display of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols or paraphernalia or symbols similar to Nazi paraphernalia or symbols to the point of confusion.
As we proved above, there are no signs of extremism in boycotting elections, which means that campaigning aimed at boycotting elections does not contradict the law.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NO ONE COMES TO THE ELECTION OR EVERYONE SPOILS THE BALLOTS?
The question of the connection between calls not to participate in elections and extremism is not as simple as it seems. Indeed, in these calls there are no signs of the use of violence, calls for a violent change in the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. Let's imagine what will happen if these calls work. Here, however, there is also important nuances. If calls for a boycott worked and no one went to the polls, then in single-mandate constituencies it is enough for at least one candidate to vote, even for himself. If people went to the polls, but spoiled the ballots, and the ballots were considered invalid, then there is a risk of the elections being declared invalid. Let's say the same picture repeats itself in the repeat elections. Again, expenses from the budget for elections. For example, the laws of the constituent entities of the Federation sometimes provide that if repeat elections do not take place, then the next repeat elections may be postponed for a period not exceeding two years. If the term of office of the deputy is less than a year, then repeat elections will not be held.
There will be no anarchy in the period between elections, because deputies State Duma will continue to exercise their powers until the start of the work of the State Duma of the new convocation. Thus, postponing the elections only plays into the hands of the current deputies!
Theoretically, no destabilization in power occurs if the elections are declared invalid. This also does not cancel the elections themselves. Therefore, in essence, with calls for a boycott of elections, “undermining the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, according to which the highest direct expression of the power of the multinational people of the Russian Federation is a referendum and free elections,” which Roskomnadzor refers to, does not occur.
What's going on? The minds of ordinary people are being agitated and they are being misled. Indeed, this can undermine political stability and raise citizens to protests and riots. That is, targeted activities to boycott elections can be harmful. Especially if it is carried out with the participation of foreign elements. But foreign citizens and organizations are already prohibited from engaging in election campaigning. Strictly speaking, recognizing calls for a boycott of elections as extremism is illogical and groundless. But the law does not have adequate measures to counter such activities, which in some cases can be harmful.
Before the 2006 changes, elections could be declared invalid if less than 20 percent of the voters on the voter lists took part. Now by general rules elections are declared invalid if:
for lists of candidates who, according to the law, received the right to take part in the distribution of deputy mandates, a total of 50 percent or less of the votes of voters who took part in voting in a single electoral district were cast;
all candidates were eliminated during the re-vote.
For the elections of State Duma deputies in 2016, following rules declaring the elections invalid. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation recognizes the elections in the federal electoral district as invalid:
1) if no federal list of candidates received 5 or more percent of the votes of voters who took part in voting in the federal electoral district;
2) if all federal lists of candidates received a total of 50 percent or less of the votes of voters who took part in voting in the federal electoral district.
In addition to declaring elections invalid, elections may be declared invalid. The invalidation of elections depends on other circumstances, on serious violations in the procedure. If the elections are declared invalid or invalid, or the candidate elected in a single-mandate (multi-member) electoral district has not resigned from his powers incompatible with the status of a deputy, in all these cases repeat elections are called. There cannot be a complete cancellation of the elections, no matter what calls for a boycott of the elections may be heard.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Boycotting elections (failure to show up for elections, turnout and damage to a ballot, turnout and misappropriation of a ballot) is not an offense. There is no responsibility for this.
2. It follows from the first point that there can be no responsibility for calls to boycott the elections. However, if citizens are called upon to participate in unsanctioned protests, then administrative liability may arise for this under Article 20.2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
3. Failure to appear at the elections does not give any result (does not affect the elections in any way), since the turnout threshold has been abolished.
4. The only type of “boycott” that can influence something is damaging the ballot and putting it in the ballot box. Such “votes” of voters are taken into account in the number of voters who took part in the voting. If there are too many invalid ballots, the election may be declared invalid.
5. Declaration of elections as invalid due to large quantity invalid ballots leads to repeat elections, which means that current deputies are kept in their seats. Therefore, calls to spoil ballots are beneficial to current deputies!
6. The current government uses certain tactics in order to gain a majority in parliament. Now this tactic is to ensure that as few voters as possible take part in the elections. Among the methods she uses is setting the voting day for September, when many are still on vacation and at their dachas; she herself is also playing for the party in power. Calls not to vote fit into this tactic.
7. The blocking of provocative sites carried out by Roskomnadzor can be supported. It is primarily naive citizens who may suffer from calls to boycott elections and participate in unauthorized protests: participation in unauthorized protests is an administrative offense.
Presidential elections will take place on March 18, 2018 Russian Federation. Our position, the position of the Bolshevik revolutionaries, remains unchanged - active boycott of elections. What will happen on March 18 is an ordinary election within the framework of the capitalist system, while maintaining the dominance of the bourgeois class. This is not a referendum to decide what socio-economic system will be established - socialism or capitalism. These elections are a formality for the appointment of one or another representative of the bourgeoisie to a leadership position. These elections are procedure for legitimizing another 6 years of capitalism in Russia. Therefore, we adhere to the tactics of active boycott. An active boycott is expressed in refusal to participate in the elections on March 18. We invite all thinking, conscientious citizens, everyone who does not want existing social problems to perpetuate, don't go to the polls. If you were nevertheless lured to the polling station by deception, persuasion or pressure, then damage to the ballot would be a manifestation of boycott on your part. To spoil a ballot, you need to mark all of its boxes, that is, “vote” for all the listed candidates. Only after this can the ballot be crossed out, a protest inscription written on it, etc. Without marks in all columns, simply crossing out the ballot does not render the ballot unusable. Moreover, if, in the process of writing a slogan on it, you put a mark next to the name of one of the candidates (even just crossed it out), without marking the others, your ballot will be considered a vote for this candidate. Therefore, be careful and do not succumb to the tricks of unscrupulous persons who suggest, to express a boycott, “be sure to go to the polls and simply cross out the ballot.”
Not going to the polls is the most honest civic position. We do not agree with the absolute power of capitalists - large owners who live by robbing the people; we do not recognize this power as legitimate; and therefore we do not participate in events organized by its representatives. Thereby we don't become accomplices robbery of working people in cities and villages, youth, pensioners, and the unemployed. We do not become accomplices in the crimes of capitalism. If you are tired of poverty, tired of barely making ends meet and thinking only about the survival of your family, you will not agree to allow this existence to continue for the next 6 years. You will join an active boycott of the elections.
Let us recall some facts about upcoming elections. The current President V. Putin, who has already held this post three times, participates in them - from 2000 to 2008 (two consecutive terms) and from 2012 to the present (6-year term). Article 81 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3, states: “the same person cannot hold the position of president for more than two consecutive terms.” The Constitution has long been turned into a beautiful, but non-binding declaration. Thus, the following articles: 7 – “RF social state”; 14 – “The Russian Federation is a secular state”; 19 – equality before the law and court; 21 clause 2 – “no one should be subjected to torture, violence, or other cruel or degrading treatment”; 23 – “the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations etc."; 25 – “inviolability of the home”; 28 – “freedom of conscience is guaranteed”; 29 – “freedom of thought and speech is guaranteed”; 30 – the right to association, including trade unions; 31 – the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, to hold rallies, demonstrations, etc.; 37 clause 3 – “the right to remuneration for work without any discrimination not lower than the minimum wage, the right to protection from unemployment”; 39 – guaranteed social security by age; 44 – “freedom of literary, scientific and other types of creativity, teaching” and other articles are limited or completely null and void by the provisions of federal laws, judicial practice or by law enforcement practice, and often by the personal arbitrariness of local managers, and it is very difficult to achieve protection from this arbitrariness. But such articles of the Constitution as Art. 8, paragraph 2 – “private, public, etc. are recognized and protected equally. forms of ownership"; Art. 9 p. 2 – “Land, etc. Natural resources may be privately owned"; Art. 35 – “the right of private property is protected by law.” After all, private property is one of the foundations of capitalism, which is why it is so carefully guarded.
Let's return to the question of the legality of V. Putin's nomination as a presidential candidate. This issue will come up repeatedly during the election campaign at the suggestion of the so-called liberal opposition. It is worth noting that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 81 have been met. Formally, if elected, Putin will begin a second term contract, and 2 months before election day it is already clear that no changes can be expected in the presidency. This is also evidenced by the initiatives of the current president. According to the Vedomosti newspaper, Russian authorities thinking about conducting a “budget maneuver” after the March elections. According to the publication, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the relevant ministries and departments to calculate the increase in budget spending on education, healthcare and infrastructure. The reform plan is being prepared at the Center for Strategic Research of Alexei Kudrin. A possible source of financing for the maneuver could be an increase in the personal income tax rate to 15%. Other interlocutors of the newspaper talk about a possible increase in the retirement age as a source of funds. In short, the essence of the “budgetary maneuver” is to increase income taxes and the retirement age. Expenditures on education and health care, which are being used to disguise this “maneuver,” will either end up in the offices of officials different levels, or will be “eaten up” by inflation. That’s why the proteges of the bourgeois class are so eager to secure the consent of the masses, and that’s why they lure people into elections. They need high turnout rates to create the appearance of “popular support for the political and economic course.” Having invested money in organizing elections, the bourgeoisie has already planned to take it from the people in n-fold amount. Whatever the outcome of these elections, the bourgeoisie as a class will remain the winner.
No matter how much liberals say that “you need to go and vote against Putin, and those who don’t come give him a vote,” dreams of changing course (without building, mind you) through elections remain dreams. As long as the bourgeois class is satisfied with Putin’s activities in protecting the interests of this class, it will not be possible to replace it through elections. We are not against Putin alone.(who is the representative of the bourgeoisie, its protege as president, defender and spokesman for the class interests of the bourgeoisie), but against the capitalist system as a whole. Unlike Putin’s opponents, we are not going to stop fighting after another representative of the same class takes his place. Our goal is conquest by the working class political power, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat by carrying out a victorious socialist revolution. At the stage of preparation for the socialist revolution, the tasks of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus (r), among other things, are: the destruction of the state machine that served the oppressors, the institutions of the presidency and the power and security structures associated with it; dissolution of bourgeois parliaments; concentration of legislative and executive power in the Soviets; repeal of all anti-socialist legislation.
The composition of candidates vying for the highest post in the state this time is somewhat different from usual. For example, the place of the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G. Zyuganov in the list of candidates was taken by the director of JSC State Farm named after Lenin, a major owner P. Grudinin. This is not the first time that this party has nominated businessmen, various types of entrepreneurs and other persons representing the same class - the bourgeoisie with its class interests.
The leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has always considered itself to have a monopoly on the title of communist party. Now it claims the right to speak on behalf of the entire left movement, calling P. Grudinin “a single candidate from the left and national-patriotic forces.” Meanwhile, some left-wing organizations and parties not only did not unite with right-wing “national-patriotic” forces, not only did they not participate in the so-called primaries ( preliminary voting on the topic of who to nominate as a presidential candidate), which Grudinin “won,” but also directly announced a boycott of the upcoming elections. Therefore, references to “undermining the unity of the left movement,” which the boycott of the elections will allegedly lead to, are groundless. Firstly, there is no unity of the left forces yet. Unity is necessary in actions aimed at preparing the working class and all working people for the socialist revolution. Opportunists interpret the unity of the left as general support for their errors and meanness. Secondly, what most discredits the left movement, undermining the trust of the masses in it, is participation in elections organized by the bourgeoisie according to its rules, and even with a candidate who is a representative of the same bourgeoisie.
In turn, the ROT Front party nominated N.S., an overhead crane operator at the open-hearth workshop of the Petrostal metallurgical plant, as a presidential candidate. Lisitsyn. And this is the only candidate (at the time of publication of the newspaper the collection of signatures in its support is ongoing) from the working class. Despite the fact that the party in the past year suffered from the actions of the special services of the bourgeois Russian Federation (mass detentions and arrests of activists participating in the festive events on May 9, 2017, criminal prosecution and torture of the Sevastopol communist V. Bolshakov), ROT Front decided to take part in the procedure of giving legitimacy to the capitalist system. As N.S. herself states. Lisitsyn, she participates in elections “not for the sake of victory, but to rouse the workers to fight.” How can participation in bourgeois elections as an extra contribute to the growth of class consciousness of workers? People have long been tired of the beautiful promises of various candidates. Workers en masse have a negative attitude towards both the elections and the pre-election hype. They are waiting from communist parties other calls and other methods of action, and they are again trying to lure them to the polling stations to perform the next ritual, which will further consolidate their oppressed position. It would not be superfluous to remind readers of the conclusion made by K. Marx based on an analysis of the actions of the Paris Commune - the proletariat must not only take control of the state machine of the bourgeoisie, but break it, destroy it.
The idea of a boycott has plenty of opponents on both the right and the left. “Merged in ecstasy” with national patriots are the “main leftists” in Once again refer to Lenin’s “The Infantile Disease of Leftism in Communism” (it is this work that opportunists of all kinds are very fond of recalling when they want to reproach the Bolsheviks for being “excessively revolutionary” and unwilling to support the ruling class). Opponents of the boycott of the elections from the “left” claim that V.I. Lenin bequeathed not to refuse compromises with the bourgeoisie, which means you cannot boycott the elections - you must “definitely” come and vote for a well-known candidate. However, they forget to clarify what trade-offs they are talking about we're talking about. Up to a certain point - either as long as there is low social tension, or the communist movement does not pose a threat to the power of capital - the bourgeoisie puts up with the legal existence of leftist forces. And in this situation, certain compromises are inevitable - publishing legal newspapers, coordinating protests or commemorations, attempts to resolve labor disputes within the framework of the law. To voluntarily refuse such compromises means seriously complicating your work. But the elevation of legality to an absolute, the desire to act only within the framework of bourgeois legislation, will sooner or later lead the left forces either to the cessation of all their activities (when they are prohibited by law), or to the betrayal of the interests of the working class and integration into the system of power. We are talking here about temporary coexistence with the power of capitalists, and not about growing into it. Nominating candidates in bourgeois elections and actively participating in them is precisely an attempt to grow into, integrate into the system of the current government, and preserve it. Therefore, “Childhood disease of leftism...” is not applicable in this case.
Despite the abolition of the turnout threshold, the ignoring of elections by a large number of people frightens the ruling class. So much so that instructions have already been issued to the regions to “lure” the electorate to the polling stations with iPhone giveaways and career guidance tests. And this is also why the 2018 elections differ from previous ones. Until now, polling stations usually sold various products and baked goods, which attracted voters mainly of retirement age. Nowadays, capitalists’ trust in pensioners should decrease - the rise in prices for housing and communal services and products, the refusal to increase pensions for working pensioners by the amount of inflation (thus, their actual reduction), and the natural general impoverishment make this part of society a source of social tension. And every manifestation of discontent, every indignation of the people is a sharp knife for the capitalists and their bureaucratic servants. It is not for nothing that the prosecutor’s office has been given a new main task - to combat public protests and prevent “uncoordinated actions.” According to the law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation,” the task of the prosecutor’s office is to oversee the implementation of laws and the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. Naturally, protecting their power for capitalists is much more important than any rights and freedoms, more important than their own laws.
They are trying to lure young people to the polling stations, considering them more loyal to the current government. This is understandable - today’s 18-25 year olds spent their entire adult lives under President Putin, and massive anti-Soviet propaganda, according to those in power, serves as a reliable defense against “subversive” ideas.
And the ruling class does not even consider it necessary, as before, to “flirt” with potential voters, promising all sorts of benefits after the elections. The campaign is built on intimidation: on the one hand, the idea “The West wants to overthrow Putin” is skillfully introduced into the public consciousness, so that any protests in the period before the elections can be declared “the machinations of external enemies.” On the other hand, forceful suppression of any discontent of citizens is openly being prepared. Thus, the Russian Guard reported that it would “act harshly in the event of unauthorized actions during the Russian presidential elections.” Alexey Zinin, deputy head of the Main Directorate for the Protection of Public Order of the Russian National Guard, told reporters about this. The Russian Guard was initially formed to suppress protests - it is worth recalling at least one of its first exercises in Zlatoust, during which they practiced storming a factory occupied by striking workers, and a video of these exercises was shown on television. It was the employees of the Russian Guard who beat and tortured Sevastopol communist, member of the ROT Front party Valery Bolshakov in November 2017.
Now we do not call on citizens to participate in specific protests. But the life of the masses in capitalist Russia is getting worse. This is probably where the sore “stability” is expressed – in declining incomes, living standards, in the growing number of “working poor” who cannot feed themselves and their families on the handout thrown by the capitalists and called wages, in the steady rise in prices for goods and services. It is for this, and even for the destruction of industry, for the destruction of “sanctioned” products, for the increase in the number dollar billionaires they are not just offered, but forced to vote in the elections on March 18. It is already clear that after presidential elections the situation of the masses will worsen. Having received a formal extension of their powers, the capitalists will finally stop being shy about squeezing the last juice out of the working people. Therefore, in the future we cannot do without protests with varying degrees of radicalism. Labor rights and social guarantees won a century ago during the Great October Revolution will have to be defended again from the criminal attacks of the bourgeoisie. She will not give up power peacefully. Only a socialist revolution will overthrow its criminal rule.
It is also worth remembering that March 18 is the day of the armed uprising of Parisian workers in 1871, the day of the Paris Commune. No one can forbid us to celebrate this day the way the left usually celebrates memorable historical dates - with pickets, rallies, processions. And regarding the presidential elections, our position has remained unchanged - an active boycott. Join us. Ignore bourgeois elections. Take the path of struggle against capitalism, against oppression and exploitation.
On December 24, opposition leader Alexei Navalny was officially nominated as a candidate for the presidency of Russia. The CEC, as expected, did not allow him to participate in the elections, since according to the law, Navalny does not have the right to be elected as he has been convicted under a serious article of the Criminal Code.
CEC Chairman Ella Pamfilova has previously repeatedly said that he will be able to run for president no earlier than 2028. Nevertheless, speaking to the crowd, Navalny said that he was going to the elections to win and “change the government.”
After being refused registration, the politician promised to start a campaign to boycott the elections: “No election campaign is possible if I am not allowed to vote. If I am not registered, then I will call for an all-Russian voter strike.”
Telegram responded to this matter with restraint, but succinctly. As he writes Nezygar, " calls for a boycott of elections will be grounds for charges under Article 282 of the Criminal Code.
Calls for a boycott mean automatic blocking of sites and user accounts calling for a violation of constitutional rights. Extremism, according to the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activities, is considered to be obstruction of citizens from exercising their voting rights; as well as political calls for the implementation of these actions.
As reminded in the channel Someone else, "before the 2016 elections, several websites were blocked for calling for a boycott. Oh...". A Elite theory notes that “Nezygar @russica2 brings Navalny under the article. It should be noted that this completely coincides with the position of Roskomnadzor, which back in July 16 blocked 4 Internet resources based on such formulations. Here is a quote from the Vedomosti article dated July 10:
“Roskomnadzor, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, blocked access to information on four Internet resources. Their publications contain materials of a propaganda nature “in order to popularize among the Russian population the idea of boycotting the elections” to the State Duma, and “activities to organize the disruption of elections” undermine the foundations of the constitutional order, it says message from Roskomnadzor.
Navalny’s resources have managed to avoid this all this time, despite the fact that he announced the boycott a long time ago. On the other hand, it should be noted that in relation to Alexey Anatolyevich, many issues are resolved in unusual ways."
Calls for a boycott will have a very limited impact on the elections, he said Russian media political scientist Nikolai Petrov: “Sobchak is the Kremlin’s answer that we see. If she is registered and continues to speak under Navalny’s slogans, then a significant part of those who would go out to protest will be calmed down. It is important for the Kremlin not to bring Navalny’s electorate to the elections, but to split his".
“Navalny announced the need to boycott the elections - to come to the polling stations, but only to observe, you don’t need to take a ballot. That is, to track the real turnout, but not to increase it. I believe that if we talk about a boycott of the elections, then we need to talk specifically about the damage to ballots or the selection of all candidates.Boycotting by official non-appearance is a mistake.
Politicians participating in elections must be responsible. You can’t drown in 2013 for coming to the polls, and in 2018 – for boycotting. It is very difficult to then explain to a voter why it is important to come to the polls. That this is the only opportunity to change something. And the only way to combat fraud. In the 2013 Moscow mayoral elections low turnout was a serious problem that determined the election results,” Alexander Shurshev summarized on his Facebook.
There are two months left before the presidential elections. Their outcome is predetermined. We were unable to change the picture painted by the authorities - the opposition forces once again did not find the strength to unite and form a common election platform.
In this situation, it seems to some that the calls to ignore the most important political event in the country are quite natural. But will such a position change the balance of power and disrupt the plans of Kremlin strategists?
Boycott is a dangerous political precedent. It is dangerous, first of all, for the life and development of civil society.
The call not to go to the polls preserves the passive mood of people regarding the electoral process and reduces the activity of civil society. The very fact of non-participation in voting deprives citizens of incentives to participate in campaigning and observation. This was the case in the 2016 Duma elections.
The boycott will be diluted. After all, in election campaign candidates are participating for whom a democratic voter can vote, including Navalny’s supporters. Well, the most active supporters of the boycott, yes, will remain on the sidelines. Many will have a convenient excuse to stay home and ignore the elections from now on.
It is obvious that turnout in the upcoming elections will be low. According to a December survey by the Levada Center, less than 60% of voters plan to go to the polling stations, of which only 28% gave a definitely positive answer. Accordingly, against the general background of lack of interest in the elections, the “electoral strike” will slightly reduce turnout: by about 1-2%, which does not pose any danger to the authorities. Of course, politicians calling for a boycott will try to explain the low turnout as the success of their strategy. But this will not have any impact either on the situation in the country immediately after the elections, or on the political process in the foreseeable future.
In any case, the government will raise the turnout rate to a figure acceptable to it. This is what happened in the recent Duma elections, when turnout increased from 40 to 50% overnight during the vote count.
The absence of a democratic voter will increase Putin's results. The nuclear electorate of power will be driven to the elections - public sector employees, military and civil servants, and together there are almost 40 million people, and administrative resources will be harshly applied. In the absence of observers, immediately after the closing of the polling stations, ballot boxes will be placed in the ballot boxes on behalf of voters who did not come. required quantity“correct” ballots – turnout and results will be brought to target values in the simplest ways.
To go or not to go to the polling stations is everyone’s personal choice. But I recommend that those who want to be a citizen of a democratic state, responsible for its fate, choose this line of behavior: come to the polling stations and, if the desired candidate is not on the ballot, write his name down. It is especially important to observe elections, participate in the work of election commissions, and prevent falsifiers from doing their criminal work. In this way, we will reduce Putin’s results and show that we are not giving up. This is a boycott of the current government, and not a boycott of the institution of elections.
Today power belongs to Putin, but tomorrow everything could be different. Yes, today the institution of elections has been stolen from us. The Kremlin is tormented by the presence of the institution of free and competitive elections in the Constitution. It would be more convenient for them to have elections without choice on the Soviet model. We must not allow competitive elections to disappear as a principle present in people's minds. Elections are the only instrument for changing power. Ignoring them excludes the peaceful path of change, and we in the People's Freedom Party (PARNAS) stand for the formation of democracy in Russia through peaceful means. I am sure that very soon we will be able to use the institution of elections for its natural purpose.
(definition from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia)
Fascism (Italian fascismo, from fascio - bundle, bundle, association) - ideology, political movement and social practice, which are characterized by the following [six] signs and features:
Justification on racial grounds for the superiority and exclusivity of one, therefore proclaimed dominant nation;
Intolerance and discrimination towards other “alien”, “hostile” nations and national minorities;
Denial of democracy and human rights;
Implantation of a regime based on the principles of totalitarian-corporate statehood, one-party system and leaderism;
Approval of violence and terror in order to suppress a political opponent and any form of dissent;
The militarization of society, the creation of paramilitary forces and the justification of war as a means of solving interstate problems.
Which of these canonical signs of fascism are missing in Putin’s Russia?!
Down with the fascist junta!
British political scientist Lawrence Britt, having studied the experience of seven fascist regimes - from Hitler to Pinochet - formulated their common features*.
Along with political aspects, they also include social trends: nationalism, militarism, sexism.
The famous Chilean psychologist and thinker Claudio Naranjo, citing this list in his book “Heal Civilization” (Klass, 2014), notes that fascism, constantly improving, is taking over the modern world.
This is not just about the loss of freedom, but above all about a certain collective mentality.
And here are 14 of its signs.
1. Vivid manifestations of nationalism.
The ceremonial display of flags, pride in military achievements, and calls for national unity against this background are characteristically linked with suspicion of everything foreign and with outbreaks of xenophobia.
2. Contempt for human rights.
Human rights under the fascist regime were devalued - they impeded the fulfillment of the goals of the ruling elite.
Using propaganda, such regimes ensured that the population accepted human rights violations, socially isolating and demonizing those who were the targets of these violations.
3. Search for scapegoats.
One of the most significant common features All fascist regimes were looking for enemies - to hold them responsible for their mistakes, distract the population from other problems and channel social disappointment into a controlled direction. People who opposed such regimes were labeled "terrorists" and treated accordingly.
4. The dominance of everything military.
The ruling elite has always identified itself with the army.
A huge part of national resources was spent on military expenditures, even if it was difficult to meet the country's internal needs.
For fascist regimes military power was an expression of national superiority, and they used it at every opportunity to intimidate their neighbors and increase their power and prestige ruling class.
5. Pervasive sexism.
Fascist regimes viewed women as second-class citizens, maintained a strong anti-abortion stance, and fostered homophobic attitudes in society.
This was reflected in the draconian laws that enjoyed support from traditional religion countries.
6. Control over the media.
The media under fascism were often under strict control of the authorities and could not deviate a single step from the party line.
Methods of control included not only the issuance of permits and access to resources, economic pressure and persistent calls for patriotism, but also threats.
7. Obsession with national security.
Apparatus national security served the fascist regimes as a repressive instrument, working in secrecy and without restrictions.
Moreover, any doubt about his activities was branded as betrayal.
8. The connection between religion and the ruling class.
Propaganda supported the illusion that fascist leaders were defenders of the faith and their opposition were atheists.
People had the feeling that opposing the elite in power was the same as rebelling against religion.
9. Protecting corporate power.
Whereas private life ordinary citizens were under strict control, large companies could operate with relative freedom.
Corporations not only guaranteed powerful military production, but also acted additional means social control.
10. Suppression of workers' associations.
Labor movements were seen as a force that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling class and the entrepreneurs who supported it.
Such movements were suppressed and equated with criminal groups.
The poor were viewed with contempt and suspicion.
11. Contempt for intellectuals and art.
Intellectual and academic freedom were believed to threaten national security and patriotic ideals.
Freedom of thought and expression was condemned and suppressed.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
The prison population under fascist regimes was very high, with the police receiving a heroic reputation and almost unlimited power, which led to numerous abuses.
To justify expanding the powers of the police, the authorities stimulated the population's fear of criminals, traitors and enemies.
13. Protectionism and corruption.
Entrepreneurs close to power used their position to enrich themselves. Corruption developed in both directions: the fascist regime received financial assistance from the economic elite, and they receive political favors from the government.
Members of the power elite often used their positions to appropriate national resources.
14. Fraud of election results.
The supposedly free elections were, as a rule, fictitious.
At real elections ruling elites sought to manipulate candidates to obtain a favorable outcome.
* L. Britt “The 14 Characteristics of Fascism,” Free Inquiry Magazine, 2003.
Which of these signs are missing in Putin's Russia?!
Modern fascism: new faces and manifestations. - M.: Science and Politics, 2017. - 328 p.