Candidates for the State Duma from the democratic coalition will be determined by 24 thousand voters

On May 28 and 29, primaries of the democratic coalition will be held, following which a list for the State Duma elections will be formed on the basis of the PARNAS party. As deputy chairman of the party Konstantin Merzlikin told Kommersant, 96 candidates registered for the primaries. According to Kommersant's calculations, 24 candidates represent PARNAS, six represent Alexei Navalny's unregistered Progress Party, which formally left the coalition. The party affiliation of most candidates is not indicated. 24 thousand registered voters will be able to vote in the primaries.

The personal data of voters was found on the PARNAS website. The personal data of people who voted in the primaries of the democratic coalition were publicly available on the PARNAS website. According to the deputy chairman of the party, Konstantin Merzlikin, “we are talking about unauthorized access to the voter database” with the aim of “discrediting the primaries procedure.” The unregistered Progress Party (which previously left the democratic coalition) believes that PARNAS themselves accidentally published the file. Voting in the primaries has been suspended. “Due to unauthorized access to the database, information was leaked.

PARNAS has approached the primaries - Candidates for the State Duma from the democratic coalition will be determined by 24 thousand voters - Kommersant newspaper - Kommersant Publishing House. On May 28 and 29, the primaries of the democratic coalition will be held, following which the PARNAS party will be formed.

The first three places in the primaries were taken by candidates not included in PARNAS. Leader of the unregistered Progress Party Alexei Navalny The Central Election Commission (CEC) PARNAS admitted yesterday that it is impossible to sum up the results of the primaries due to the fact that

According to the regulations on the primaries of the democratic coalition (it included PARNAS, the Progress Party, the December 5 Party, the Democratic Choice and the Solidarity movement), based on their results, three places in the federal part of the list and places in regional groups will be determined. The list will be headed by PARNAS Chairman Mikhail Kasyanov - this decision was made at the coalition forum in December (see Kommersant on December 12, 2015). After NTV showed the film “Kasyanov’s Day” on April 1, in which Mr. Kasyanov and PARNAS member Natalya Pelevina spoke critically about the deputy chairman of the party Ilya Yashin and the leader of the unregistered Progress Party Alexei Navalny, Mr. Yashin announced his refusal to participate in the elections from PARNAS. Supporters of Mr. Navalny did the same. Mikhail Kasyanov responded to the demands of party members to participate on an equal basis with other candidates in the primaries with a categorical refusal.

He apologized to those who participated in the primaries at his call, and whose data was publicly available. He noted that so far a police report about the hacking of the site has not been filed.

How PARNAS approached the primaries. “Yes, I would like there to be more voters, and I hope that electronic democracy in our country has prospects,” said Konstantin Merzlikin. “We did not expect that there would be nationwide participation, but people

Discussed by Natalya Pelevina, Leonid Volkov, Mikhail Shneider, Roman Arbitman.

PARNAS deputy chairman Konstantin Merzlikin told Kommersant that 96 candidates were registered for the primaries, representing “all parties and organizations included in the democratic coalition.” According to Kommersant's calculations, PARNAS is represented by at least 24 participants - mainly heads and representatives regional branches parties. Also participating in the primaries were member of the federal political council bureau Andrei Pivovarov, members of the political council Mikhail Shneider, Natalya Gryaznevich, Musa Sadaev and Natalya Pelevina, who, after the screening of the film “Kasyanov’s Day,” announced the suspension of membership in the political council. “Democratic Choice” is represented by nine people, including the secretary of the party’s political council, Kirill Shulika, as well as the heads of regional branches. From the Party of December 5, a member of the Solidarity and Memorial bureau, Sergei Davidis, and the initiator of the Russian Marches, Alexander Belov (Potkin), are running in the primaries. From the Libertarian Party - its leader Andrei Shalnev and member of the federal committee Dmitry Maksimov. Six members of the Progress Party also registered for the primaries, despite the party’s withdrawal from the coalition: among them, member of the central council Evgeny Domozhirov and head of the Vladimir branch Alexey Efremov. “Yes, the party decided to leave the coalition, but it reserved the right for its members to continue participating in the primaries and elections in general,” explained Mr. Merzlikin.

The Central Election Commission of the Democratic Coalition reported that it was impossible to establish the results of the primaries, which took place on Sunday. This is explained by the hacking of personal data of voters. As of Sunday afternoon, according to the Central Election Commission, 7,475 voters voted in the primaries. The leaders in the number of votes were Saratov Regional Duma deputy Vyacheslav Maltsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences Andrei Zubov, municipal deputy of the capital's Zyuzino district Konstantin Yankauskas, head of the Moscow branch of the unregistered Progress Party Nikolai Lyaskin, as well as the imprisoned nationalist Alexander Potkin (Belov).

The primaries for the selection of candidates for the State Duma elections from PARNAS were supposed to end on May 29, at 21:00 Moscow time. The list will be headed by party leader Mikhail Kasyanov. Second, third and fourth places were to be distributed based on voting results.

Most of the participants in the primaries are non-partisan or did not indicate their party affiliation. Among them, along with historian Andrei Zubov, Saratov opposition activist Vyacheslav Maltsev and People's Artist Vladimir Nazarov, Naberezhnye Chelny City Council deputy and former United Russia member Ruzil Mingalimov is registered. After " Open Russia"Mikhail Khodorkovsky announced his support for Mr. Mingalimov in the elections, the political council of the United Russia branch decided to expel him from the party.

Voter registration for the primaries also ended yesterday - there are about 24 thousand of them, according to Konstantin Merzlikin. They will be able to choose up to 12 candidates from the list. Voting will take place on May 28 and 29 on the website of the democratic coalition and at special polling stations. Three sites will operate in Moscow, one each in Balashikha, St. Petersburg, Chelyabinsk, Irkutsk, Lipetsk (14 cities in total). “All sites, without exception, were created on the initiative of local activists: they were looking for premises and equipment - at least two computers with Internet access,” explained Mr. Merzlikin.

Deputy Chairman of PARNAS emphasized that “the idea itself” from the primaries is being implemented “successfully,” although not everyone “carried the fulfillment of their obligations to the end.” “We regret that Alexei Navalny, on whom we really counted, abandoned his obligations halfway through. We regret that Lyubov Sobol (lawyer of the Alexei Navalny Anti-Corruption Foundation) left the primaries. "Ъ"). She is a promising politician, and to this day we are ready to nominate her in the constituency assigned to her - Nagatinsky,” deputy chairman of PARNAS told Kommersant. Ms. Sobol herself wanted to run as a single-mandate candidate in the Central District of Moscow, where PARNAS intends to nominate historian Andrei Zubov.

Mikhail Kasyanov walked through the bureau.
He will head the party list, and his ally Natalya Pelevina is recommended not to be nominated as a deputy. As Kommersant learned, members of the PARNAS political council bureau did not agree with Mikhail Kasyanov’s proposal to form a party list for the Duma elections, taking into account the primaries. The day before, the PARNAS central election commission admitted that it was impossible to sum up the results of the primaries due to the fact that bots participated in them, and voting was interrupted due to the publication of personal data of voters on the party website. According to the results of the unfinished primaries, Saratov blogger Vyacheslav Maltsev took first place (5.4 thousand votes).

The unregistered December 5 Party, part of the Democratic Coalition, called for the results of the coalition primaries held on May 28 and 29 to be recognized, even though voting in them was suspended due to the hacking of the PARNAS party website.

“This result should be considered final and binding,” the party said in a statement.

Earlier, the Central Election Commission, which conducted the primaries, said that due to the hacking of the website, it was impossible to summarize the voting results. One of the leaders of PARNAS, on the basis of which the Democratic Coalition was created, Konstantin Merzlikin, said that the interim voting results can be considered as " background information", however, the decision on the distribution of seats on the lists for the State Duma elections will be made by PARNAS.

Voting was stopped around noon on Sunday after a file with the personal data of those who voted in the primaries was published on the PARNAS website by unknown persons. The party claims the website was hacked. The actions of PARNAS were sharply criticized by the deputy chairman of the party Ilya Yashin, who previously withdrew his candidacy from the primaries after a disagreement with PARNAS leader Mikhail Kasyanov. Yashin believes that the FSB could have been involved in hacking the site, with the help of one of the party staff. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in turn, calls claims of involvement in the FSB hacking “nonsense.” He believes that the PARNAS staff themselves made a gross technical error.

Politicians talk about the significance of the outcome of the primaries for the future prospects of the Democratic Coalition Natalia Pelevina, Leonid Volkov, Michael Schneider, journalist Roman Arbitman, Saratov.

Presenter – Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr..

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: The Democratic Coalition held its primaries last weekend. And today we will discuss their results with PARNAS party activists Natalya Pelevina, Mikhail Shneider and Progress Party activist Leonid Volkov.

Leonid, what makes you not recognize these results?

Leonid Volkov: I do not raise the question of recognition or non-recognition of the results. I was not a participant in these primaries, either as a voter or as a candidate. I worry about “electronic democracy” - the idea that recent years I quite actively represent and defend five in the public space. She suffered a very serious blow at the PARNAS primaries - the way they were conducted, that during them there was a massive leak of personal data of opposition activists. This is a very bad story, because now it will be very difficult for us in future stories to tell people: “Register, provide your details, go to the site, leave your details and vote.” Nobody will believe this. And this trail, apparently, will last quite a long time. We will be reminded for a long time: “Remember, there were the PARNASUS primaries, where a disaster happened.” In addition, there was no proper political reaction or political assessment to it.

Even greater damage to democracy may or may not occur, depending on how this story unfolds. PARNAS now has to decide, it is his internal business, what to do with the results of these primaries. The Progress Party does not participate in the Democratic coalition; we look at it from the outside. A rather exotic person for our environment won the primaries - video blogger and politician from Saratov Vyacheslav Maltsev. Behind him were people quite recognizable among us: Professor Zubov, Konstantin Yankauskas (December 5 Party), Nikolai Lyaskin (Progress Party). And I have fears that in the PARNAS establishment there is an idea brewing to give the voting results a reference character, to push Maltsev aside, not to put him on the list. This will be another terrible blow. How will we then attract people somewhere if we say: “Okay, you voted, but we ignore all this. We deliberated here and decided differently”? This is a future threat that I also see.

I would really like there to be a serious debriefing following this whole story, so that it would be clear who is to blame for the wrong organizational and technical decisions, how the data leaked happened, and what we all need to do to prevent such stories from happening in the future.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Natalya, are there any plans to give these results a reference character, as Leonid Volkov suspects?

Natalya Pelevina: In no case! As I understand it, the party will ultimately decide everything. Of course, these results will not be of a reference nature, and the formation of the list will be based as much as possible on these results.

And I would like to say that, of course, the entire analysis of what happened is already being carried out, the results will soon be known. Of course, a political assessment of what happened will be given. Of course, this is a disaster, this is a very bad story. But, unfortunately, it fits into what happened to PARNAS behind Lately. We know well how PARNAS, as Kasyanov’s party in particular, has been pressed in recent months. Therefore, there is no need to talk about any other versions of what happened, except that some third forces decided to infiltrate the process to discredit PARNAS.

But I am sure that based on the results of these primaries, almost completely, I think, the list will be formed.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Mikhail, what is your version of what happened – what happened during the primaries?

Mikhail Shneider: I was disturbed by the hasty conclusions made by many bloggers, representatives of the Progress Party, even some representatives of PARNAS and simply civil activists. There is a certain set of facts, and from this set of facts, which can have different interpretations, they made an unambiguous conclusion - they blamed the technical support that PARNAS organized for what happened, they blamed the organizers of the primaries, - in particular, they blamed the political leadership of PARNAS. It’s like blaming a victim of violence that it’s her own fault that she was caught by a bully on the street.

In this case, I support what Ilya Yashin, deputy chairman of the party, wrote in his blog - about the need for an internal official investigation. I am sure that it is already underway and that it will be completed in the near future. And then we will find out what really happened.

There are three indisputable facts. The first fact was that there was unauthorized access to the database.

Leonid Volkov: No, this is not a fact. We know about this only from the words of PARNAS programmers. This is a statement, not a fact.

Mikhail Shneider: The amendment was adopted. There was something that exposed the contents of the database to everyone. Whether it was a “jamb” of technical support, whether it was unauthorized access on the part of a third force, in particular the Federal Security Service, maybe the technical service was used in the dark - I don’t know, but to make an unambiguous conclusion that one or another of these parties is to blame, Of course, it's too early.

Leonid Volkov: If data is leaked, then the one from whom it was leaked is always to blame, because it is his responsibility to protect it.

Mikhail Shneider: I want to remind you that a similar situation with vote cheating happened four years ago, in 2012, when you were involved in organizing. But then it never occurred to anyone to blame you for causing the leak.

Leonid Volkov: Firstly, there was no vote fraud in the elections. This is an incorrect term. Secondly, we are comparing two different things. During the elections to the Coordination Council of the opposition, the attack was repulsed - the election commission was able to eliminate the attack of the "emmemists". Just as here the election commission of the primaries, having worked competently, eliminated a certain number of “bots”. Accounts were identified that voted for the Yaroslavl deputy Tsependa, for the Irkutsk candidate Olga Zhakova. Indeed, there were small numbers of “bots” organized by them. The Election Commission identified this and cleaned it up. No questions at all.

There were no data leaks during the elections to the Coordination Council. Although there were 170 thousand registered voters and 82 thousand voted. But here, despite the fact that the volumes were 10 times smaller, the leak was very regrettable.

In 2012, we did not store any data, especially in open form. It was necessary to organize such a system so that it would not store any data - and there would simply be nothing to leak. But my colleagues did not listen to the advice. And this leads to the fact that they are responsible for it.

Natalya Pelevina: It was a slightly different time. But let's remember that the Pentagon was also hacked, in my opinion, by Apple or Microsoft...

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: And Angela Merkel's phone was tapped.

Natalya Pelevina: Nowadays, almost anything can be hacked. What can we say about the unfortunate PARNAS website, with good programmers, average, bad - whatever. My phone number with all my photos was recently made public - everything was posted in full just two months ago. This was not the case four years ago. We live in a different time. Today, unfortunately, all this is possible many times more than it was then.

And no one argues about your professionalism, Leonid.

Leonid Volkov: After the release of the movie "Terminator 2", when a 12-year-old boy with a keyboard connects to an ATM and downloads data, it is always very difficult for information security specialists to fight the myths in the minds of non-specialists that anything can be hacked and so on. This is wrong. There is a certain competition between projectile and armor, but the fact remains that 95 (if not 99) percent of all data leaks, and the most likely cause of all data leaks, is insider knowledge. The same "Panama papers", the same Pentagon, Snowden and so on - this is an insider. It is tens of times easier for an insider to extract any information than for an outsider. And the insider version should always be worked out first; it is more likely than the hacking version from the outside.

I see in what PARNAS does, what he publishes, the initial sentiment that “we were hacked by the bloody FSB.” This is from the outside – an absolutely uncritical attitude. And with this attitude, investigations in the field of information security are not conducted. First you need to look inside and exclude all versions associated with a leak from within. And then everything else.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: At one time there was a report by Ilya Yashin about Kadyrov, which, in my opinion, also leaked from the PARNAS database in two days.

Natalya Pelevina: Yes, it leaked, and Kadyrov published it first.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: We are all interested in the personality of blogger Vyacheslav Maltsev. Let's watch an excerpt from his speech dedicated to the results of the Democratic Coalition primaries.

Vyacheslav Maltsev: They write to me: “Well, Slava, did you play with the thimbles?” Nobody has played anything yet. Let's wait for the voting results. There were many interesting moments. The most important thing for us was to attract attention to these primaries. That is, Maltsev’s victory should have attracted attention. In any case, we have already won. That is, we have completed our “minimum program”. What could be the “maximum program”?..

In general, I have no doubt about victory, if everything happens honestly - I don’t doubt it for a second. Sergei received a call from one of his comrades who was at the polling station and did not notice anyone who would not vote for Maltsev, or at least for someone else. Well, that's logical. Because people didn’t actually vote for Maltsev, people voted for 05.11.17. People voted for justice, for choice, for change. That is, with whom do they associate changes and their understanding of justice, their understanding of choice? Here they contact us. So I think everything is fine here.

There were a lot of fakes in Saratov. Here some strange people gave interviews, who, it turns out, were the most important assistants - not even assistants, but almost comrades-in-arms of Maltsev.

- "Fighters of the Revolution."

Vyacheslav Maltsev: Yes. And then they left. But I remember some, they left because they stopped paying money. Well, that was a long time ago, when they were still fighting with Ayatskov. But I wouldn't say that they were anything other than "foot soldiers."

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: We have our colleague, journalist Roman Arbitman, on direct line from Saratov.

Roman, what is the reputation of blogger Vyacheslav Maltsev in the city? And what is the secret of his success, let’s say?

Roman Arbitman: When I heard about this news, I remembered Zhvanetsky, who said: “I respect the monstrous choice of our people.” I think that the majority of those who voted for Maltsev really voted for him. I don't think there were any stuffing. It surprises me that he is enjoying success, rather, not in Saratov, where they forgot about him, but somewhere in other places. This is interesting, this is an amazing phenomenon.

And in Saratov, Maltsev was popular somewhere in the early 2000s, when he fought Ayatskov with his own methods, which, by the way, were very strange, but nevertheless effective. He is a competent populist, he does not mince his words. At that time, many people fought with Ayatskov, including Vyacheslav Viktorovich Volodin. Whoever fought with him!.. So Maltsev also fought. And when they fight a politician, he gains popularity. Because Ayatskov fought dirty with him, there were all sorts of bad actions. But against this background, Maltsev certainly grew up and gained additional charisma. Now he is much less known in Saratov, to put it mildly. When I heard the news about this event, I discovered that most of the news came to Saratov from Moscow. But the people of Saratov were not very interested in this personality.

I want to warn you in advance that I have never met Maltsev, I don’t know him, so I don’t have any personal accounts or claims. But I think this is a very interesting phenomenon. Well, like the phenomenon of 1993, when they suddenly voted for Zhirinovsky. Because populists are a great force. Moreover, Maltsev is an eloquent person; he sometimes says very noticeable things. There are many attractive things in his vlog. People like what he says. I don’t know how it is now, but before he was a strong homophobe, now he probably doesn’t raise this topic anymore. But I don’t think there was any cheating or stuffing of votes. I think this is quite real choice voters. Another thing is that, in my opinion, Vyacheslav Maltsev has little to do with both liberalism and democracy. But, nevertheless, it happened.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: In my opinion, this is some kind of repetition of the Nevzorov phenomenon.

Leonid Volkov: There is no phenomenon. It is enough to analyze the digital results of the primaries. 7.5 thousand people voted, 5 thousand of them voted for Maltsev. These are disjoint sets. The overwhelming majority of those who voted for Maltsev did not vote for anyone else. The man approached seriously election campaign, he campaigned for a month on his fairly popular video blog from morning to night, recorded a good video instruction there, well, he encouraged people in every possible way to come and vote for him. He did the job of a politician, did what is expected of a candidate in the primaries. He brought 5 thousand people. The remaining 2.5 thousand voted for other democratic candidates: Lyaskin, Yankauskas, Zubov, and so on. There were 90 people there. Somehow their votes were distributed. But there were 2.5 thousand of them, and Maltsev brought 5, so he took first place by a huge margin.

If the campaign had been normal, if turnout had been ensured, if at least half of those who voted in the elections of the Opposition Coordination Council in 2012 had come (with less Internet penetration), then Maltsev would have ended up in about 15th place. This is a fairly high result for a regional video blogger. He would probably have ended up in the highest place among regional politicians, but outside the top ten. And we would not discuss this incident now. There is no special history with Maltsev. He’s great – he worked hard and brought 5 thousand of his supporters. The problem is that the remnants of the Democratic coalition brought 2.5. Which proves our thesis: no one was interested in primaries with a fixed first place. The story was not interesting - the battle for second place in conditions when Kasyanov was in first place without any alternative.

Natalya Pelevina: I agree that there was no special story with Maltsev. Indeed, he did the work and brought all these people. As I understand it, he has a large number of his supporters because he has a popular video blog. I found out about him a month and a half ago. Someone told me: “Maltsev supported you.” I say, "I don't know who it is." And then I looked at the blog for the first time.

Another thing is that the small number of people who voted is not only PARNAS’s fault. Still, when our coalition colleagues decided to leave the process, citing all sorts of different things, then we lost the opportunity to acquire new supporters who were ready to vote. And now it’s simply unfair to pin this entirely on PARNAS. Because when all these showdowns started, when everything exploded... But it might not have exploded! Even after the film it might not have exploded. We could have come out of this completely differently, but we came out of it all dirty. And people began to turn away. I am sure that even of those who registered initially, not all of them – as we now see from statistics – voted. Because people are disappointed in all of us. Leonid, not only in us, but also in you.

Mikhail Shneider: People weren't interested in the primaries. From my point of view, the primaries were organized completely incompetently. Unlike the 2012 CSR elections, when there was a real all-Russian campaign, when there was voting in the streets. What are primaries? This is a collection of living people, not electronic votes that can be screwed up; it was possible to arrange a vote (thank God, it was stopped) of “emmemists” or, as now, “bots”. Despite the fact that the United States is one of the most developed countries in the field of not only “electronic democracy”, but also simply democracy, primaries there do not take place on the Internet, primaries are a street story.

Let me remind you that representatives of the Progress Party participated in the coalition. And the story with the release happened a month and a half ago. All this time is wasted time for organizing voting. And the fact that at first, as we were told at the last federal political council, Alexei Navalny set the bar - 200 thousand...

Natalya Pelevina: Kasyanov put 200, and Alexey told him - 100 thousand. And everyone agreed on this.

Mikhail Shneider: In fact, 20 thousand registered. It’s funny for me to listen now when they assure me that Maltsev is extremely popular, who received 5 thousand votes out of 7.5 thousand who took part in the voting. Guys, this is funny! The story of the primaries is a failure from the very beginning if it does not involve street actions and street agitation. That is, from the point of view of the September election campaign, we did not gain anything from this, and perhaps we lost.

Leonid Volkov: From September's point of view, everything is lost. And talking about any electoral prospects for PARNAS now is simply ridiculous. But I was present at all the negotiations when, since February, we have been continuously convincing Mikhail Mikhailovich to give up his uncontested first place, which he insisted on, showing that this ruins both electoral prospects and all interest in the primaries, which was confirmed by sociology. He refused. And when the question arose that “we do not agree to work this way,” which was expressed out loud and not out loud, Mikhail Kasyanov and Konstantin Merzlikin had a feeling of relief: “We will do everything just fine without you.” And we see what the respected leaders of the PARNAS party were able to do organizationally without us: a “leaky” website from which data leaked, 2.5 thousand democratic voters and a completely failed information campaign. Such primaries, of course, went negative.

Mikhail Shneider: There is a completely different interpretation of this story.

Natalya Pelevina: Why, in my opinion, did Alexey mention the primaries twice before February?

Leonid Volkov: Because, starting in January, we continuously came and explained: the way you do everything, the way the site is made...

Natalya Pelevina: Isn't this a kindergarten?

Leonid Volkov: ...all of this is done terribly. Registration does not work there, it is impossible to attract voters. We sat down many times and talked about mistakes, problems, and “jambs” in development. But the technical group was largely isolated from us. And there was a clear position: “We’ll do everything ourselves.” Now we understand that “we’ll do everything ourselves” - this means “we’ll hire one outsourced programmer in Kazan for 70 thousand rubles and give him the impossible task of doing everything.” And of course, the organizers are also responsible for this, as they set the person a obviously impossible task. Creating a serious and secure electronic voting system is not a task that can be solved by one programmer, even a jack of all trades. There is a clear organizational failure, and we are all seeing the consequences. There were many other organizational failures, the consequences of which were not so noticeable to an outside observer, so no conclusions were drawn from them. I would like to believe that at least conclusions will be drawn from this. If bureaucrats and apparatchiks know how to force through some decisions and “squeeze them out,” unfortunately, it does not follow from this that they are leaders, politicians, or organizers.

Mikhail Shneider: More interest Ask. Now we have watched the story with Maltsev. And there was a comment that he was not a liberal at all, he had nothing to do with liberalism. I wonder when, Leonid, you were developing the ideology of these primaries, who could be a candidate, was there any mention that candidates must sign something?

Leonid Volkov: Great question! The rules of the primaries were developed and written by me, and what I wrote was taken as a basis. We took into account, among other things, the experience of the Coordination Council and the stories of “emmeme people” who registered and then had to be removed. And three degrees of protection were introduced. Firstly, the candidate had to pay an registration fee of 20 thousand rubles, which cuts off a certain number of “city crazy people”. Secondly, the candidate had to sign papers, enter into an agreement with the organizer of the primaries - with the PARNAS party, with the organizing committee - that he declares his commitment to the values, supports the program of the PARNAS party, and undertakes to comply with all this. But these two points were not enough. And so that people, having paid 20 thousand and lied about their commitment to values, do not get through to us, there was a third point, for which we were criticized a lot. To prevent anyone from sneaking in, the following rule was introduced: in order to be registered in the primaries, a person must obtain support from one of the five parties included in the Democratic Coalition.

Guess, Mikhail, which party, part of the Democratic Coalition, supported and gave an official letter of support to Vyacheslav Maltsev? Party PARNASUS!

Natalya Pelevina: And it is true.

Mikhail Shneider: How was the support organized?

Leonid Volkov: Decision of the political committee.

Mikhail Shneider: Was this formalized by some kind of decision?

Leonid Volkov: The procedure within the Progress Party was as follows. A person turned to us for support, we held a meeting of the central council and formalized the decision from the central council. The December 5th Party, in my opinion, also voted with its federal committee, and the Libertarian Party too. I don’t know how this procedure was arranged in the PARNAS party. But the people who supported Maltsev and are now planning to remove him (I am sure of this) from first place must bear full political responsibility for this.

Natalya Pelevina: He really was nominated. And I'm sure they won't knock it over. And not even out of love for Maltsev or anyone, but because this is simply an unacceptable story. Still, we believe in democratic procedures and mechanisms no less than Leonid, so in this case, since he really won based on the results of the unfinished primaries, of course, I am sure that they will not remove him after all.

Leonid Volkov: Vyacheslav Maltsev won the primaries and should, in accordance with the procedure, take second place on the PARNAS party list after Mikhail Kasyanov. I’m ready to bet with anyone that he won’t be there, PARNAS will come up with one or another explanation.

Natalya Pelevina: I am convinced of the opposite.

Mikhail Shneider: Today I was invited, like other candidates, to tomorrow’s meeting. Tomorrow at 18:30 there will be a meeting of candidates who were registered in the primaries. And a decision will be made there, apparently...

Natalya Pelevina: The discussion will begin.

Mikhail Shneider: The decision will be formally made by the congress. The federal political council will make recommendations to the congress. And the federal political council will be based, among other things, on the results of the discussion that will take place tomorrow.

Natalya Pelevina: All candidates from all parties that are currently part of the coalition and that participated in the primaries are invited.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Which scenario are you leaning towards?

Natalya Pelevina: I am sure that what happened now, the results that we have in the primaries, will be taken as a basis as much as possible. The only person is Mr. Potkin. As we know, he is in a pre-trial detention center.

Leonid Volkov: He is a political prisoner. Legally submits documents through a lawyer and moves forward. He's not convicted.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Dmitry Nekrasov went on the run, but he will run for Yabloko.

Natalya Pelevina: I will definitely insist that these results be taken as a basis, including all of the above.

Leonid Volkov: I do not believe in this. I can imagine what political processes are taking place in PARNAS, how decisions are made there. Although the general interest in this whole story, I see, has shrunk and shrunk very much, including due to the extremely frivolous approaches of the leaders of the PARNAS party to information security and the extreme untidiness in what they do, I am sure, following the logic of the apparatus, there is no Maltsev , of course, they won’t let you into the federal part of the list.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Roman, does Vyacheslav Maltsev understand what kind of story he is involved in, that he has become the talk of the town among federal politicians?

Roman Arbitman: I think that Maltsev understands and rejoices at this whole situation, because it suddenly elevated a politician whom everyone had forgotten in Saratov, and few people in Russia know about him. Here we are now gathered and arguing about Vyacheslav Maltsev. I think he's having a blast.

Here one can argue that perhaps this is a spoiler that was put forward in order to discredit Kasyanov. I don't know what's behind this. Maybe he really wanted to become number two on this list. But after these primaries, Maltsev will still not be the most popular Saratov politician of a liberal or democratic persuasion. I think that he will not be number two in the Russian opposition.

Today's precedent is not a precedent. We just see that with current technologies, any person with the proper skill, and Maltsev certainly has it, can get there. If he had participated in the primaries of United Russia, which took place around the same time, with the same skill, if he had been registered from United Russia, I think he would also have received first or second place. This is a punchy, energetic person. But it seems to me that the fact that any energetic person, with the help of some structures or without their help, can get into this situation should rather put us on guard. And maybe they shouldn’t hold these primaries, since they don’t know how to conduct them.

Leonid Volkov: "Why do we need democracy? Why do we need voters? We don't want a politician to be energetic so that he can mobilize supporters. We don't want a politician to be able to bring supporters."

Mikhail Shneider: This is demagoguery!

Leonid Volkov: This is the hardware logic of Mr. Kasyanov.

Mikhail Shneider: The current stage of development of “electronic democracy” in our country, taking into account the capabilities of the FSB... We can simply have democracy. I don’t understand what “electronic democracy” is.

Leonid Volkov: Our people are not the same, they vote for the wrong people, we are immature...

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: At every stage there are costs.

Mikhail Shneider: Agree. But if you organize primaries, they must be done wisely. Not in “electronic clouds,” but on the ground – on platforms.

Leonid Volkov: So you are a member of the PARNAS party, which organized the primaries, did you tell Mikhail Kasyanov about this?

Mikhail Shneider: Certainly! But I was told that there is Lenya Volkov who insists on electronic voting because it is his life’s work.

Leonid Volkov: I had nothing to do with organizing the PARNAS primaries.

Mikhail Shneider: I was told that at an early stage it was Leonid Volkov who insisted on electronic voting. This has nothing to do with politics, with the upcoming elections in September. Because those people who took part in the voting, who now voted for Maltsev, and these 7.5 thousand who took part in the voting - a maximum of 1 percent of them will participate in the elections in September. They will have a 1 percent turnout.

Leonid Volkov: Mikhail, how you offended everyone! Have you taken part in the work of offline polling stations? At the elections of the Coordination Council in 2012, there were 70 offline polling stations; now, unfortunately, colleagues from PARNAS were only able to make about 15, nevertheless, they were there. People came to offline polling stations and voted, for example, for Maltsev.

Mikhail Shneider: There were no real polling stations. Real polling stations are located in city squares. You were against this form of voting in 1212, and even more so you were against it now.

Natalya Pelevina: This system is flawed.

Leonid Volkov: This is wrong. "E-democracy" is not a half-baked idea. If you use your mind, everything works. Let me remind you that in the spring of 15, when we held primaries to form regional lists in Novosibirsk, Kostroma and Kaluga, everything worked out, everyone liked everything, the results suited Mikhail Mikhailovich Kasyanov.

Natalya Pelevina: And then everyone laughed about it.

Mikhail Shneider: These primaries have nothing to do with elections. They can be used for the elections of the Coordination Council of the Opposition, some kind of democratic parties, but not to bring this to the All-Russian elections.

Leonid Volkov: Let me remind you that in the Novosibirsk region, when we formed the PARNAS list to participate in the elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Novosibirsk region, 2.5 thousand registered in the primaries and 1 thousand 200 people voted. Yes, they scolded us and said that this was not enough. Now, when organized by other people, when organized by PARNAS, there are 2.5 thousand voters, not counting the 5 thousand “Maltsevskys,” throughout the country. I think the results are quite telling.

The point is not that there is anything wrong with “electronic democracy”. "Electronic democracy" is a wonderful institution. And democracy is a wonderful institution, but there is “Churovsky” democracy, and there is real one. And Kasyanov’s “electronic democracy” turned out, unfortunately...

Mikhail Shneider: “Electronic democracy” has nothing to do with real democracy.

Natalya Pelevina: Leonid, do you think that 1200 in the Novosibirsk region is enough?

Leonid Volkov: It was a good result.

Natalya Pelevina: Only later did all the “Kremlinbots” write: they are claiming power, but they vote in the region where, as they say, they have great support, 1200 people.

Leonid Volkov: And now 2.5 people vote across the country.

Natalya Pelevina: Only the blame for this lies with all of us.

Leonid Volkov: Unfortunately, we have very bad political traditions in the country. Our reputation as an institution is very bad. Our politicians are not used to answering for their failures and taking responsibility. In our country, no one, either from the authorities or from the opposition, ever resigns or says that “I did something wrong, I must bear responsibility for it.”

Mikhail Shneider: This is wrong! In 2003, the leaders of the Union of Right Forces resigned.

Leonid Volkov: Wonderful! This has not happened in Russia since 2003. Happened huge failure, a huge blow to the democratic movement. Horrible, discreditable story. I don't see anyone taking responsibility for it.

Natalya Pelevina: And after 2 percent in Kostroma, did anyone leave politics? Yashin left politics after 2 percent? Didn't leave.

Mikhail Shneider: And the chief of staff of the election campaign, Leonid Volkov, resigned?

Leonid Volkov: Leonid Volkov analyzed the situation and no longer claimed to head the headquarters. We discussed that based on the results of Kostroma, if we had gained 5 percent, of course, I would have applied to lead the federal headquarters of PARNAS in the elections in State Duma. And this was my plan, I don’t hide it. I worked like a horse, first in Novosibirsk, then in Kostroma, hoping that we would show results - and I would head the PARNAS election headquarters in the State Duma elections.

Mikhail Shneider: But the campaign in Kostroma was a failure.

Leonid Volkov: I admitted my responsibility for this, wrote a long debriefing, and answered all the questions. And he said that in next elections I, as the organizer, chief of staff, and so on, am not going to participate. I would like to see something similar performed by Mr. Kasyanov, Mr. Merzlikin, and so on.

Natalya Pelevina: I'm sure it will still happen.

Mikhail Shneider: But first we need to get results in the elections.

Natalya Pelevina: I agree with Leonid that not only a detailed analysis should be carried out. Of course, we need to come out publicly and accept responsibility for some parts of this failure. I believe that we all bear responsibility. I'm not talking about the hack or what happened there. We are all collectively responsible for this. Of course, you need to take responsibility. And I am sure that the management will definitely do this. If I have the opportunity, like Mikhail, to ask them about this, we will ask them separately.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: What can be done in the remaining three months, what conclusions can be drawn so as not to lose this election year?

Leonid Volkov: This election year has already been lost, unfortunately. In February, I received a call from a manager from the printing house where we placed all our orders during Navalny’s March 2014 campaign. And he says: “Leonid, I treat you very well. How are you doing with the elections? All my machines are already fully occupied, we are printing A Just Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in millions of copies. But I love you and there’s only one machine for you.” I’m holding it. Borrow it as soon as possible, otherwise I’ll have to use this machine too.” From January-February full swing There is a full-fledged election campaign in which billions of rubles and enormous resources are being invested.

There is no opportunity now – in June-July – to jump on this train. The primaries were conceived as a way to extend the official election campaign, attract positive attention, create news stories in February-March-April, and reinforce our story. But, alas, taking all the circumstances into account, they only weakened the history of PARNASUS. Now there will be jumping onto the step of the departing train. I don’t know what resources PARNAS has, but it’s unlikely that PARNAS has 500-700 million rubles, without which there is no point in getting involved in the federal election campaign.

Now, unfortunately, any PARNAS campaign will be a spoiler for Yabloko. And in the general interests, conditionally, of Russia or the democratic movement, it is apparently beneficial that PARNAS does not participate in the election campaign and does not put forward its list. Of course this won't happen. We will see two weak campaigns - PARNAS and Yabloko. One party will gain 1 percent, the other will gain 1.5 percent. And this will end this election cycle. It's very sad that this will happen. But there is also good news. Power in Russia will not change as a result of elections, so, ultimately, none of this is so important.

Mikhail Shneider: When I came here, I didn’t want to accuse anyone of anything. On the contrary, I wanted us to calm down, so that there was no panic. We will need panic in case natural Disasters. The apocalyptic predictions are based on a truly disastrous primary campaign. An absolutely fundamental mistake was made: for some reason they decided that the primaries would be the locomotive that would pull through the entire pre-campaign. Of course, everything had to be done differently. If I had been involved in the pre-campaign, if I had been at the headquarters, in the committee that discussed this, of course, I would have structured all this differently. My experience suggests that everything should have been done wrong.

And it’s strange for me to listen to Leonid Volkov. A man who has been doing this for more than a year, that is, was the head of the campaign in Kostroma, then was at the initial stage of the primaries campaign, is now talking about future failure. This is completely ambiguous. If we now rely on polling data from Gallup, then there are chances. I am not inclined to discuss Apple right now and possible scenarios interaction with Yabloko. I believe that nothing is lost yet. We can agree with Yabloko on mutually strengthening our campaigns and create two small factions in the State Duma. In any case, we can agree on the division of single-mandate electoral districts. There are already important agreements, as far as I know, on the Central District, on Shchukino. I will insist that we agree with Yabloko on cooperation on party lists as well. There are technologies that make it possible to do this, and I would not give up on this campaign now.

Natalya Pelevina: I don't want to sound overly optimistic, I'm not a completely stupid person. Leonid is right - the government will change. And I think no one fully knows how it will change. But this will happen simply because such is human nature. Sooner or later, but it will definitely happen.

I’m sorry that we weren’t able to go through an important stage, which is objectively going on in the country right now, together. What happened on April 1 may or may not have led to this catastrophe. Unfortunately, it did. And this is my big pain. I do not absolve myself of responsibility for some components of this story, but everything that was done largely destroyed my life. And I'm very, very sorry. I still hope that someday we can work together, I would really like that. Especially considering that many participants in the process are still young. And therefore, if we are not going to leave the country, sooner or later we will probably have to interact somehow.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: Leonid, do you think we will work together? As Yavlinsky and Gaidar once said in the “Dolls” program at the logging site.

Leonid Volkov: The Democratic coalition was a good idea. The democratic coalition was based on two principles: we hold primaries to decide political issues and we form lists on the basis of the PARNAS party, as having, thanks to Boris Nemtsov, a license to participate in elections. As long as we adhered to these principles, everything worked out for us - the Democratic Coalition worked, we successfully collected signatures in Novosibirsk, Kostroma, we worked to increase recognition and so on. Alas, it later turned out that the ring of omnipotence enslaves its owner. One of the coalition participants has the right to sign, he understands that, ultimately, it is he who will sign the list, so gradually the temptation to destroy the system of checks and balances becomes too strong for him. Ultimately, when 4.5 members of the coalition - all four parties plus a significant part of PARNAS - came to Kasyanov and said: “Mikhail Mikhailovich, we need to structure our work differently, we need to change something,” he said: “No, I decide everything here, because I have the right to sign, I control PARNAS, I will put forward the list.”

Natalya Pelevina: He never said that!

Leonid Volkov: Maybe I'm simplifying. At this point, the coalition ceased to exist because it turned out that it was not equal. Because there has been a deviation from its basic principle - resolving controversial conflicts with the involvement of voters through primaries, and not with the help of the party establishment. Well, in the future we need to take this into account and build a better system of checks and balances.

I don't see any tragedy in what's happening with this election cycle. The State Duma of the seventh convocation will be worse than the State Duma of the sixth convocation, it will be just as comical and terrible. And it would be irresponsible optimism to think that we will get 15 percent and get the faction there. Let me remind you that the regime experienced the most powerful shock, the most unpleasant moments in 1911, when we did not participate in the elections, when we did not have parties for which we would like to vote. We were not on the ballot, we were not nominal participants in the elections. However, one successful phrase “United Russia is a party of swindlers and thieves”, one successful slogan “Vote for any other”, essentially destroyed all the electoral chances of “United Russia” and brought many people to the streets, leading us to this situation , in which we find ourselves.

You don't have to be on the ballot to win. There is no magical meaning to this. In order to win, you need to be good politicians, you need to find unexpected counter-moves, asymmetrical ones. Because there is no way we can defeat this power head-on; it is many tens of thousands of times stronger than us in terms of resources. We must win by the fact that we are smarter, that we are better at what we do, including the fact that we admit our mistakes, that we reflect on all failures, that we learn from our mistakes and do not step on the same ones. the same rake ten times. Because politicians who do not know how to work with confidential information or personal data... Politicians admit their mistakes and leave, rather than tell how wonderful they are.

Natalya Pelevina: And the fact that we support each other, and do not drown each other when possible.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: This anniversary year is a quarter-century after the 91st year, when there were also no head-on clashes, but, nevertheless, they overthrew the communist omnipotence, destroyed the “prison of nations”, and banned Communist Party. Also completely unprepared people who took to the streets spontaneously, were not armed, and had no organization. Nathan Yakovlevich Eidelman said that in Russia the cycle is a quarter of a century, which means this year will also be difficult.

Mikhail Shneider: What is "11/5/2017"?

Leonid Volkov: This is Mr. Maltsev's theory that a revolution will happen. He has a Guy Fawkes mask hanging in his studio. November 5 – on the one hand, the 100th anniversary October revolution, on the other hand, November 5 – magic date. And around this he builds some kind of ideology.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr.: I'm very glad this conversation happened. Of course, I was a little upset when the primaries fell through. But let's not compare 2012 and 2016. In 2012 there was a “white tape” revolution, there was the “Bolotnaya Affair”, of course, the situation was different, and everything looked better.

The personal data of people who voted in the primaries of the democratic coalition were publicly available on the PARNAS website. According to the deputy chairman of the party, Konstantin Merzlikin, “we are talking about unauthorized access to the voter database” with the aim of “discrediting the primaries procedure.” The unregistered Progress Party (which previously left the democratic coalition) believes that PARNAS themselves accidentally published the file. Voting in the primaries has been suspended.

“Due to unauthorized access to the database, an information leak occurred. We recommend that you urgently change the password in your email and social media accounts,” says a statement on the party’s website. Deputy Chairman of PARNAS Konstantin Merzlikin told Kommersant that the voter database contained only their mailing addresses, logins and passwords for participation in the primaries and telephone numbers, and now PARNAS is trying to notify all voters about the leak as soon as possible and recommends that they change their passwords from mailboxes. Voting in the primaries is currently suspended.

Konstantin Merzlikin emphasizes that “we are talking about unauthorized access to the voter database and to the PARNAS website.” According to him, the party is now analyzing the situation and finding out the reasons why such a leak could have occurred. “We will complete the investigation and within two to three hours we will give our position on this issue,” he said. “The goal of the attackers was not to search for personal data of voters, but to discredit the primaries procedure,” the deputy chairman of PARNAS is convinced. He noted that the nature of the penetration into the party’s databases, according to preliminary data, is such that it is not clear how to deal with it. “Perhaps the site and database were hacked through the provider,” added Mr. Merzlikin. According to him, the PARNAS central election commission will decide this evening whether to accept the preliminary voting results in the primaries as a basis or not.

Deputy Chairman of PARNAS noted that “even before the start of voting, the election commission discovered a number of suspicious accounts, several hundred were blocked.” He did not specify how many voters had voted at this point. According to PARNAS, as of 21:00 on May 28, 4,245 voters had voted.

The leader of the unregistered Progress Party, Alexei Navalny, who had previously left the democratic coalition, said that “the executive leaders of PARNAS should resign after this.” “Shame, discredit and sabotage,” he wrote in Twitter.- In connection with the publication of the passwords of primary voters, I would like to once again apologize to those who went there to register at my call.”

The executive leaders of PARNAS should resign after this. Shame and discredit and sabotage.

— Alexey Navalny (@navalny) May 29, 2016

Leonid Volkov, a member of the central council of the Progress Party and organizer of elections to the Opposition Coordination Council, called on primary voters to “urgently change passwords everywhere.” According to him, the “crooked idiots from PARNAS” “stored passwords in clear text in the database” and themselves “managed to post a file with the passwords of voters on their website,” where it “hung for about an hour.” “If you didn’t vote, you’re out of the risk zone, but it’s better to change your password anyway, because you gave it to people who don’t understand anything about information security and are incompetent in everything they undertake,” he said, noting that “It is impossible to imagine a greater blow to the ideas of electronic democracy.”

Let us remind you that based on the results of the primaries of the democratic coalition, a list for elections to the State Duma should be formed on the basis of the PARNAS party. Advance voting began at midnight on May 28th and was scheduled to close at 9:00 pm on May 29th. As Konstantin Merzlikin reported to Kommersant, 24 thousand voters and 96 candidates registered for the primaries, several of them representing the Progress Party, which formally left the coalition (see Kommersant on May 27).

Natalya Korchenkova, Sergey Goryashko

How Mikhail Kasyanov prepared for the campaign

At the political council on May 23, the question was again discussed whether party chairman Mikhail Kasyanov should leave first place on the list of the democratic coalition and participate along with other candidates in the primaries. Mr. Kasyanov categorically refused.

How did the split of the democratic coalition based on the Parnassus party occur?

The democratic coalition based on the PARNAS party actually ceased to exist at the end of April: supporters of Alexei Navalny officially left it. The split occurred after a conflict between the coalition members and the leadership of PARNAS; the association planned to nominate candidates on the basis of this party. Experts believed that the discord left no chance for either PARNAS or the breakaways, and Yabloko would become the favorite of the opposition electorate.

Why Ilya Yashin dropped out of the PARNAS primaries

On April 12, deputy chairman of PARNAS Ilya Yashin left the primaries of the democratic coalition. He cited the circumvention of this procedure by party chairman Mikhail Kasyanov as the reason. He noted that the uncontested appointment of Mr. Kasyanov as head of the PARNAS list in the State Duma elections gave the authorities the opportunity to launch a campaign to discredit him. The party did not intend to remove Mikhail Kasyanov from the first position on the list. The unregistered Progress Party of Alexei Navalny “essentially agrees” with the position of Ilya Yashin.

That as of 12:00 Sunday, the leader in the primaries was blogger Vyacheslav Maltsev, who received 5.4 thousand votes, second place went to historian Andrei Zubov, who received 1.6 thousand votes, third place went to one of the founders of the December 5 Party, Konstantin Yankauskas, with 1.3 thousand votes. Fourth place was taken by the head of the Moscow branch of the unregistered Progress Party Nikolai Lyaskin with 1 thousand votes, fifth place by nationalist Alexander Belov (Potkin) with 900 votes. PARNAS member Natalya Pelevina took sixth place.

After 12:00 on Sunday, it was decided to suspend the primaries procedure, as it became known about the unauthorized collection of voter data and the presence of groups of bots in the voter list.

In turn, PARNAS leader Mikhail Kasyanov promised to partially take into account the results of the primaries. “Part of the results of the primaries will be taken into account. Still, a third of registered voters managed to vote, and we cannot completely ignore their opinion,” he told the TASS agency.

The organization of the Democratic Coalition primaries casts a shadow on the preliminary voting procedure, Lyaskin believes. “What happened was a blow to the institution of primaries. Now all our supporters may have a persistent rejection of this procedure,” he believes. Lyaskin “looks forward” to the decision of the PARNAS leadership on the formation of a coalition list. “We cannot influence anything. This is some kind of theater of the absurd, the rules of the game change on the fly,” he added.

Even before Navalny’s supporters left the Democratic Coalition, there was a big conflict in the coalition after Merzlikin said that the primaries could be advisory in nature, he recalled.

Alexei Navalny, commenting on the publication of the passwords of primary voters, for calling for participation in the primaries. “In connection with the publication of the passwords of primary voters, I once again want to apologize to those who went there to register at my call,” the oppositionist wrote on Twitter. He also stressed that after this, the executive leaders of PARNAS must resign. “Shame and discredit and sabotage,” Navalny added.

Deputy Chairman of PARNAS Ilya Yashin, associates of Alexei Navalny and leader of the Democratic Choice party Vladimir Milov announced their withdrawal from the PARNAS-based Democratic Coalition at the end of April. They accused Kasyanov of disrupting the organization and financing of the preliminary vote. In particular, the party chairman was accused of unwillingness to give up the quota for first place on the Democratic Coalition’s election list without participating in the primaries. The coalition primaries were to take place on May 28 and 29 and determine the oppositionists who will be included in the regional and federal lists of the coalition. The first place on the federal list is reserved for Kasyanov as the chairman of a licensed party.