Controlled elections are a good way to keep a country's population obedient. The very existence of elections gives the most passionate citizens an opportunity to "let off steam", and if there is no possibility of electing an independent candidate, the risk of destabilising a dictatorial regime is minimal.
The safest way to ensure that no uncontrollable people get into elected bodies is to sterilise the ballot against them from the very outset. One way of doing this — the electoral filter — was discussed in the previous article. Now let us talk about refusals to register due to errors in the preparation of documents and about the direct deprivation of passive electoral rights.
How can you prove that you are Sidorov, the cashier?
When registering as a candidate in an election, a Russian citizen is obliged to submit a number of documents. For example, a passport, information on income for the last year (for presidential elections — 6 years), information on property — their own, their spouse's and their minor children's, documents on education, and also to fill in a form in which all the same information is set out in their own hand.
Strangely enough, errors in filling in these documents prove to be sufficient grounds for refusing to register candidates! Here are several egregious examples.
In the 2018 Khabarovsk mayoral election, Alexei Vorsin, coordinator of Navalny's regional headquarters, was refused registration because, in the standard form "Statement of income of the candidate and their spouse", he forgot to cross out the word "spouse", although he is not married.
Yekaterina Silayeva, a member of the Yabloko party, stood in 2024 for municipal deputy in Vostochnoye Izmailovo in Moscow. She was refused registration because she wrote "self-employed" in the "occupation" field. At the same time, the certificate confirming her occupation stated: "Registered as an individual taxpayer of the professional income tax", and the word "self-employed" does not appear in that formulation. Yet the term "self-employed" is the commonly used substitute for the unwieldy construction "taxpayer of the professional income tax", and the word "self-employed" is used, among other places, on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation. This "contradiction" proved sufficient to refuse Silayeva's registration, and the refusal was upheld even by the Constitutional Court.
Refusals also occur because of the absence of some document — and candidates are not allowed to correct the deficiency. Interestingly, the courts' position on this question has changed with the development of the Russian dictatorship. For example, in 2010 the Constitutional Court held that a candidate should have the opportunity to submit a missing document (ruling of 01.06.2010 No. 784-O-O). But in 2016 it declared that a candidate no longer has the right to submit documents (Constitutional Court ruling of 15.09.2016 No. 1742-O).
Candidates have received refusals because they put a dash in a form instead of the word "none". Because they did not immediately provide copies of the blank pages of their passport. Because of the most minimal difference in the title of a position in the employment record book and in the form. It is obvious that such strictness has no legitimate basis — after all, the person is not lying about themselves, not trying to pass themselves off as someone else or to conceal any discrediting information. So all this is done exclusively with the aim of keeping independent people off the ballot.
Property abroad
On 7 May 2013, Law No. 102-FZ was adopted, obliging candidates to report to election commissions information about their property abroad: accounts, property, shares — and also obliging them to dispose of all of it by the time of registration. Deputies of all parliamentary parties at the time voted unanimously for this law:
United Russia: 237 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 1 did not vote;
CPRF: 91 for, 0 against, 1 brave soul abstained, 0 did not vote;
A Just Russia: 59 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 5 did not vote;
LDPR: 56 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 0 did not vote.
Because of this law, in particular, Pavel Grudinin — a member of the CPRF who had earlier won 11.77% of the vote in the 2018 Russian presidential election, that is, enjoyed considerable popularity — was refused registration in the 2021 State Duma election. Grudinin was initially registered, but was then struck from the list of candidates when his former wife wrote a letter to the CEC. It claimed that Grudinin secretly owned shares in a company registered in Belize. The CPRF tried in a number of courts to prove that this was untrue, that Grudinin had disposed of all the shares back in 2017, and that the foreign company in question had in fact been closed in 2018.But the courts sided with the CEC, and Grudinin was not allowed to stand.
In 2023, in the election to the Legislative Assembly of Ulyanovsk Oblast, a court cancelled the registration of Alexander Kaplin, an environmental activist and former head of the regional Rosprirodnadzor, who was standing for the New People party. The grounds were his ownership of shares in foreign companies. Kaplin himself claimed that he had had no opportunity to dispose of these shares because of sanctions — he had no access to the instruments needed to do so.
Deprivation of passive electoral rights
Still, the simplest way to get rid of dangerous individuals on the ballot is to prohibit them by law from participating in elections. A great deal of work has been done in this direction too, often targeting specific representatives of the political opposition.
On 21 February 2014, Law No. 19-FZ was adopted, under which citizens convicted of serious crimes do not have the right to stand as candidates for 10 years from the moment their conviction is removed or expunged, and if the crime was especially serious — for 15 years.
As expected, United Russia deputies voted for this law (233 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 4 did not vote). They were supported by A Just Russia (62 for, 1 against, 0 abstained, 1 did not vote). The CPRF resorted to a cunning figure of silence: 5 communists honestly voted against, while 87 did not take part in the vote, with no votes in favour and no abstentions. The LDPR did the same — all 56 of its deputies did not vote.
Most experts believed that at the time this law was adopted personally against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who two months earlier, on 20 December 2013, had been released from prison. It cannot be ruled out that the cautious position of the CPRF and LDPR was connected with a reluctance to spoil relations with Khodorkovsky, since one never knows how a political struggle will end.
A number of experts, however, believed that the law could also have been aimed at Alexei Navalny — six months before its adoption Navalny had received a sentence in the Kirovles case, and a new trial in the Yves Rocher case had already begun against him (the guilty verdict was handed down 10 months after the law was adopted).
The Constitution against relocants
The constitutional amendment of 14 March 2020, popularly dubbed the "voting on tree stumps", brought a new norm: since then, people who have ever in their lives held citizenship of or a residence permit in a foreign state cannot stand for president of Russia. In addition, candidates are obliged to have resided permanently in the Russian Federation for at least 25 years before registration (previously it was 10 years).
The Constitutional Court found these amendments to contradict Chapters 1 and 2 of the Constitution — on the grounds that a candidate might have lived abroad not for any "discrediting" reasons, but because they were performing their sacred duty to the motherland! Presumably this refers to diplomatic staff, intelligence agents, military "legionaries" and the like. But at the same time the court adopted a decision truly staggering in its madness: "In respect of such cases, proceeding from the intended purpose of the relevant requirement, this circumstance should not be regarded as an obstacle to holding the office of President of the Russian Federation" — that is, it directly permitted election commissions to interpret the Constitution in whatever way is advantageous depending on the current moment. And, if necessary, to violate its letter outright! In short, instead of dura lex sed lex — the law is shapeless, and that is what a law is for.
Cutting off activists
On 23 May 2020 the State Duma voted for No. 153-FZ, which deprives of passive electoral rights people previously convicted under 50 different articles of the Criminal Code (already of medium or minor gravity). These citizens are prohibited from being registered as candidates for 5 years from the day the conviction is removed, including if they were given a suspended sentence.
Among the articles under which those convicted are subjected to electoral ostracism are the most "popular" among activists and protest-minded citizens:
repeated violation of the established procedure for organising or holding a gathering, rally, demonstration, march or picket;
public calls for extremist activity;
public dissemination of knowingly false information of public significance that entailed grave consequences.
As usual, United Russia voted unanimously for this law (250 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 11 did not vote). But the "systemic opposition" unexpectedly came out mostly against:
CPRF: 36 against, 7 did not vote, 0 for, 0 abstained;
A Just Russia: 15 against, 7 did not vote, 0 for, 0 abstained;
LDPR: 29 against, 10 did not vote, 0 for, 0 abstained.
If communists not infrequently dare to go against the Kremlin's general line, with A Just Russia and especially the LDPR this happens far more rarely. Perhaps the "systemic" parties in this case feared lustration or even revenge on the part of the real opposition, should it come to power? Or did they suppose that they themselves might at some point come under attack?
No less cautiously did the State Duma vote on another law, of 4 June 2021, No. 157-FZ. It deprives of passive electoral rights citizens involved in the activities of organisations recognised as extremist: a 5-year ban for leaders, and 3 years for ordinary members and even simple donors — that is, generally everyone who happened to pass by.
This law passed through parliament at lightning speed — introduced on 4 May and adopted in the third reading already on 26 May. This was connected with the fact that the recognition of FBK as an extremist organisation was being prepared at that very time, and took place on 9 June 2021, just 5 days after Putin signed the law. Obviously, the new bans had to be adopted before that happened.
Another, quite possibly not a coincidence — the date Putin signed the law, 4 June — is Alexei Navalny's birthday.
And despite such heightened significance for the regime, the law was adopted with considerable difficulty. Of course, in United Russia 290 deputies voted for it, which was enough to get it through the Duma, but at the same time one even voted against (0 abstained, 45 did not vote)!
The CPRF, not so surprisingly: 1 for, 35 against, 1 abstained, 6 did not vote. But A Just Russia and the LDPR surprise again! A Just Russia: 1 for, 1 against, 7 abstained, 14 did not vote. The LDPR: also just 1 for, 1 dared to vote against, 38 did not vote.
It is hardly possible to suppose that many systemic parliamentarians secretly supported Navalny and therefore feared the consequences in the event of exposure. Which means that, just in case, they were laying down straw — what if the situation at some point turns 180 degrees?
So, by now the ballot has already been sterilised to such an extent that it is practically impossible for an active opponent of the regime to appear on it. However, this does not mean that the electoral process is entirely devoid of surprises, since opponents can also emerge from among the most loyal supporters of the past.