The March elections will be a litmus test of popular sentiments in the time of crisis
United Russia is preparing for the elections of eight regional parliaments in March. The campaign is the first since the onset of the world economic downturn, which is sure to influence its outcome. We have discussed the possible impact of the crisis on voting in the regions, as well as the governing party's response, with First Deputy Secretary of the Presidium of the United Russia General Council and Chairman of the State Duma Labour and Social Policy Committee, Andrei Isayev.
Q.: United Russia declared the recent parliamentary elections to be a referendum on confidence in the "Putin course". The upcoming regional elections will also be a litmus test of electoral sentiments in a changed economic situation. What is your forecast?
A.: Opinion polls show that United Russia has a comfortable lead in all the regions. None of the pollsters give us less than 50% of the vote. As always, the KPRF is in second place and the 3rd and 4th places are shared by A Just Russia and the LDPR. What is important is that in spite of the crisis, the overwhelming majority of people trust UR, which means that people understand that the captain of the ship and its crew are not to blame for the storm. It depends on the captain and the crew what will happen to the ship. Today we are the most efficient team with the most coherent programme. When I say "we", I mean Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin, and United Russia.
Q.: Obviously, in choosing local deputies people will simultaneously assess the performance of the local authorities. But their rating in the regions is often not all that high...
A.: We can take the Smolensk Region as an example. The city's mayor "earned" an 80% disapproval rating as a result of his economic activities. The local branch of United Russia could not tolerate that and expelled him from the party, so we are prepared not only to assume responsibility, but are also prepared to make sure that officials at all levels fulfill their obligations to the people; we will not stop short of expelling them no matter what a person's position is.
Q.: Do you see increased rivalry between the UR centrists on the one hand and the right and the left on the other?
A.: The opposition, which is trying to turn the tables in its favour in the context of the crisis, does not have strong popular support. I am referring not only to the Communists, but also to the extreme left and extreme right. This was revealed by the opinion polls and by nationwide actions on January 31. The "Together We Shall Win" action was a response to the opposition, which was planning marches of Those Who Disagree and the Day of Popular Wrath. The people who supported the President's and the Prime Minister's anti-crisis measures outnumbered Those Who Disagree by five or seven times. Today the population faces a choice. There is a party that seeks to promote the national interests and puts the interests of the state above private interests. That party is United Russia. And then there are entities that put private interests above the national interests. For pro-Western liberals, these are the interests of individuals, business groups, and communities. For the Socialists and Communists, these are the interests of one social class. However, we all remember well that after the 1917 Revolution, that class was instantly replaced at the helm of state by the state nomenklatura. For the nationalists, who are also our opponents, it is an attempt to oppose the ethnic approach to the national interests of Russia as a community of different peoples and religions.
Q.: However, in periods of crisis the authorities become the targets of the opposition. Criticism will mount. Are you ready to face it?
A.: There is sound criticism and there is hysterical whining. The crisis has hit the whole world, yet I don't know of any calls in America or in Japan to dismantle the political system, abolish parties, and replace democracy with a monarchy, or vice versa. We should improve, not destroy, the political system. The actions of our opponents today are in many ways destructive. Instead of combating the crisis, they call on people to struggle against one another. We have seen this more than once during the course of our history: as soon as Russia gained strength, as for example in 1913, we were dragged into various world cataclysms, and internal struggle amongst ourselves became the main content of Russian politics. As a result, the country was thrown back and sustained moral, human, and economic losses. We very much hope that we will be able to break this vicious cycle and that the crisis will not lead to political instability. All the prerequisites for that are in place: a national leader whose leadership no one challenges and who remains the most popular politician in our country - you understand that I am referring to Vladimir Putin - and a strong and vigorous President, Dmitry Medvedev. Most importantly, we have a unique situation in which a strong President and a strong Prime Minister are not at odds with each other but instead work as a team, enlarging each other's opportunities. Furthermore, we have a large and popular party that can monitor the implementation of the course proposed to the nation and ensure that public feedback is heard by the authorities.
Q.: Many say that considering the crisis, it would make sense to moderate the "scale" of democracy...
A.: The authorities have the situation under control already. Moreover, the measures taken make the current political regime in Russia still more democratic. According to one proposed measure the political party that wins the election will nominate the head of the region.
Representatives of parties that have failed to cross the 7% barrier but have won more than 5% of the votes will be entitled to have their representatives at the Duma. The size of membership required to register a party will be reduced... All this demonstrates that we are a strong state and are not afraid of democratization. Our people are reasonable enough not to be taken in by provocations and glib appeals. We are very well aware that 2009 will be more difficult than many previous years, and certainly the most difficult of this millennium. But people have already had a chance to appreciate the behaviour of the authorities and of the party in crisis conditions.
We remember the horrendous economic crisis of 1991, when the authorities simply left the people to fend for themselves. We remember 1998, when several days before declaring default, the authorities assured the people that everything was fine. We see that the current authorities behave in a very different way; they are aware of people's problems and are trying to address them, they are in constant and open dialogue with society. I think the people have already appreciated that. If we manage to keep up the same mode of work and invest our policy with still more social content and commit it to the development of the real sector of the economy and not financial bubbles, we will win the next election too, whatever difficulties may lie ahead.
Q.: Are you satisfied with the way the Government is implementing the package of anti-crisis measures?
A.: I don't think anyone is ever totally happy with everything the Government does, especially in such difficult times. Personally, I would like to see a certain shift in emphases. I understand that the efforts to rescue the banking system were probably necessary. One-off injections of money into large enterprises were probably also necessary if only to preserve jobs. However, in the future, if you have to make a choice between supporting corporations and supporting the individual, I would be in favour of the latter. This is the most effective and the least corruption-generating anti-crisis measure. What is the point of giving money to the enterprises if they simply replenish their stocks of goods that nobody buys because they cannot afford them? Would it not be more reasonable to give money to the people to enable them to buy these products? Of course, I am not talking about just distributing banknotes. For the low-income social strata, the overriding problem now is food. We propose to issue food stamps to these people. Support for other social strata may be indirect. For example, the state may underwrite part of their consumer and mortgage loans. The idea of having special mortgage schemes for public-sector employees looks promising: on the one hand, it will provide people with housing and on the other, it will bolster the building industry.
Decisions that target concrete individuals are extremely important and we expect the government to make them.
* * *
Andrei Isayev: "There is sound criticism and there is hysterical whining"
Dmitry Levashov