|
PUBLICATIONS
Democratic Audit of Russia
Igor Yakovenko
"We live our lives not feeling our country…"
Russia is the most unpredictable country in the world. It's hereditary.
No research cen-ter, political or sociologist on the day before
the collapse of USSR could predict, that the big-gest state on the
world would disappear. The flotsams of the USSR are also unpredictable.
No one predicted the "Maydan scenario" the day before
the "orange revolution". But Russia anyway is the champion
in this area. Every August the analysts fade and wait for shocks.
And the absence of such shocks is also unexpected and is unpredictable.
Unpredictability means ignorance. It is uncomfortable to live in
the unpredictable country. Therefore the group of the research organizations
- The "Public Expertise" Institute, "INDEM"
Foundation and the "Merkator" analytical center has united
their efforts for carry-ing out of the scale research project called
"Democratic audit of Russia". The "Novaya Ga-zeta"
newspaper already has published results of the first stage of this
project - the "Democ-ratic audit of Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation". Today the newspaper publishes the preliminary
results of the second stage of the project: the "Democratic
audit of regions".
Russia is not only the most unpredictable, but also the most heterogeneous
country in the world. The difference between levels of freedom in
different subjects of Federation is more distinct, than between
any European countries. Kalmykia and St.-Petersburg differ from
each other more, than the Great Britain and Portugal.
The aim of "Democratic audit of regions" is the comparative
analysis of a political freedom level and democracy in 88 subjects
of the Russian Federation, standards of living, resources and economic
development of regions, and also "the rating of governors"
- the com-parative analysis of efficiency and quality of management
of regions by Heads of local of administrations. Preliminary results
of research allow seeing the place of each of 88 subjects of the
Russian Federation on a scale of political and economic development,
to compare re-gions basing on the standards of living and to create
their typology and also typology of Heads of the Russian Federation
regions. And the main task is to understand some specifics concerning
the device of Russia, not of the authorities. Concerning the country
of our living.
Conclusions of the research are based on the analysis of all regional
and fed-eral electoral statistics for last 15 years (the "Merkator"
center), the analysis of state social and economic statistics for
the same period "INDEM"), data of expert polls, in which
more than 500 federal and regional experts participated (The "Public
Expertise" Institute), and also on comparative data about infringements
of human rights in regions and data of "Medialogia" analytical
system"
Democratic character of elections and democratic character of re-gional
parliaments
To define democratic character of elections and democratic character
of local parliaments, we started with the general principles of
democracy: removability of authority, freedom of will of voters,
observance of "one person - one voice" principle, presence
of a political competition, a degree of monopoly of authority on
one of parties.
We have chosen 8 parameters describing realization of these principles.
The principle of removability of authority characterizes terms of
finding of the operating gov-ernor in authority structures - the
longer he works, the more "bronzy" he becomes. It seems
that there are almost no exceptions of this rule.
The degree of monopoly of authority at one party is defined by
a share of "Edinaya Rossiya" seats in regional parliaments.
Deputy mandates and fractions of "Edinaya
Rossiya"
in a regional parliaments
| ¹ |
Region of Russian Federation |
% of mandates, possessed by “Edinaya Rossiya” |
| 1. |
Republic of Mordoviya |
89,6
|
| 2. |
Republic of Bashkortostan |
82,5
|
| 3. |
Moscow |
80
|
| 4. |
Republic of Kalmykiya |
77,8
|
| 5. |
Republic of Tatarstan |
76
|
| 6. |
Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya |
74,5
|
| 7. |
Tumenskaya oblast’ |
72
|
| 8. |
Saratovskaya oblast’ |
71,4
|
| 9. |
Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkesiya
|
67,1
|
| 10. |
Chelyabinskaya oblast’ |
66,7
|
| 11. |
Aginskiy Buryatsky AO |
66,7
|
| 12. |
Evenkian AO |
65,2
|
| 13. |
Yamalo-Nenetzky AO |
63,6
|
| 14. |
Magadanskaya oblast’ |
60
|
| 15. |
Kurganskaya oblast’ |
58,8
|
| 16. |
Republic of Mariy El |
57,7
|
| 17. |
Voronezhskaya oblast’ |
57,1
|
| 18. |
Khanty-Mansiysky AO |
56
|
| 19. |
Irkutskaya oblast’ |
55,6
|
| 20. |
Permskaya oblast’ |
55
|
| 21. |
Kaliningradskaya oblast’ |
53,1
|
| 22. |
Ryazanskaya oblast’ |
52,8
|
| 23. |
Tambovskaya oblast’ |
52
|
| 24. |
Kirovskaya oblast’ |
51,9
|
| 25. |
Tverskaya oblast’ |
51,5
|
| 26. |
Orenurgskaya oblast’ |
51,1
|
| 27. |
Penzenskaya oblast’ |
51,1
|
| 28. |
Kamchatskaya oblast’ |
48,7
|
| 29. |
Pskovskaya oblast’ |
48,5
|
| 30. |
Republic of Tyva* |
46,88
|
| 31. |
Rostovskaya oblast’ |
44,4
|
| 32. |
Saint-Petersburg |
44
|
| 33. |
Arhangelskaya oblast’ |
43,5
|
| 34. |
Republic of Komi |
43,3
|
| 35. |
Ulyanovskaya oblast’ |
43,3
|
| 36. |
Tomskaya oblast’ |
42,9
|
| 37. |
Republic of Adygeya |
42,6
|
| 38. |
Omskaya oblast’ |
40
|
| 39. |
Sakhalinskaya oblast’ |
39,3
|
| 40. |
Republic of Ingushetiya |
38,2
|
| 41. |
Vologodskaya oblast’ |
38,2
|
| 42. |
Kaluzhskaya oblast’ |
37,5
|
| 43. |
Republic of Severnaya Osetiya - Alaniya |
37,3
|
| 44. |
Republic of Khakassiya |
37,3
|
| 45. |
Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) |
37,1
|
| 46. |
Stavropolsky krai |
36
|
| 47. |
Nizhegorodskaya oblast’ |
35,6
|
| 48. |
Smolenskaya oblast’ |
35,4
|
| 49. |
Tulskaya oblast’ |
35,4
|
| 50. |
Republic of Kareliya |
35,1
|
| 51. |
Primorsky krai |
33,3
|
| 52. |
Chitinskaya oblast’ |
33,3
|
| 53. |
Altaisky krai |
32,4
|
| 54. |
Khabarovsky krai |
32
|
| 55. |
Moscovskaya oblast’ |
32
|
| 56. |
Yaroslavskaya oblast’ |
32
|
| 57. |
Bryanskaya oblast’ |
31,7
|
| 58. |
Volgogradskaya oblast’ |
31,6
|
| 59. |
Lipetzkaya oblast’ |
31,6
|
| 60. |
Belgorodskaya oblast’ |
31,4
|
| 61. |
Ivanovskaya oblast’ |
31,4
|
| 62. |
Vladimirskaya oblast’ |
28,9
|
| 63. |
Republic of Chuvashiya |
28,8
|
| 64. |
Krasnodarsky krai |
28,6
|
| 65. |
Novosibirskaya oblast’ |
28,6
|
| 66. |
Sverdlovskaya oblast’** |
28,6
|
| 67. |
Republic of Udmurtiya |
28
|
| 68. |
Amurskaya oblast’ |
27,8
|
| 69. |
Astrakhanskaya oblast’ |
27,6
|
| 70. |
Leningradskaya oblast’ |
26
|
| 71. |
Koryaksky AO |
25
|
| 72. |
Republic of Altay |
22
|
| 73. |
Republic of Buratiya |
21,5
|
| 74. |
Kostromskaya oblast’ |
20,8
|
| 75. |
Murmanskaya oblast’ |
20
|
| 76. |
Republic of oblast’ |
19,8
|
| 77. |
Kurskaya oblast’ |
17,8
|
| 78. |
Krasnoyarsky oblast’ |
4,8
|
| |
Total in Russia |
38,3
|
* Data on Legislative Chamber of the Great Hural of Republic
of Tyva.
**Data on the Regional Duma of Legislative Assembly of Sverdlovskaya
oblast'.
The other parameters. Measure of a political competition on elections
is the separation of the winners from the nearest competitor and
the general number of competitors. The meas-ure of an administrative
resource is the attendance. If attendance in region is close to
100 %, it means that people are either "driven" into elections,
or the results are "drawn". The measure for freedom of
will is the height of a protecting barrier on elections under party
lists and share of voted "against all". Moscow is the
champion on both parameters as it has established 10 % barrier and
has cancelled the option "against all". And finally the
measure of validity is meas-ured by a parameter of "distortion
amplitude".
For an estimation of elections validity, i.e. how much the principle
"one person - one voice" is realized, the parameter of
"distortion amplitude" is used. It is a difference between
a share of the voices received by party and a share of the places
borrowed by party in parlia-ment.
"Distortion Amplitude"
results on elections in the regional legislature
conducted in 2003-2005 on proportional system
| ¹ |
Region of Russian Federation |
"Distortion amplitude” by parties having mandates |
"Distortion amplitude” by all parties |
| 1 |
Republic of Ingushetiya |
11
|
11
|
| 2 |
Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya |
10
|
15,6
|
| 3 |
Republic of Kalmykiya |
47,8
|
80
|
| 4 |
Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkesiya |
14,8
|
23,7
|
| 5 |
Republic of Mariy El |
18,7
|
18,7
|
| 6 |
Republic of Mordoviya |
14,2
|
20,9
|
| 7 |
Republic of Tatarstan |
24,5
|
42,8
|
| 8 |
Republic of Khakassiya |
22
|
29,3
|
| 9 |
Altaisky krai |
18,6
|
25,2
|
| 10 |
Amurskaya oblast’ |
19,2
|
21,7
|
| 11 |
Arhangelskaya oblast’ |
28,7
|
36,1
|
| 12 |
Belgorodskaya oblast’ |
17,3
|
23,2
|
| 13 |
Bryanskaya oblast’ |
25
|
34,4
|
| 14 |
Vladimirskaya oblast’ |
30,8
|
40,8
|
| 15 |
Volgogradskaya oblast’ |
25
|
38,5
|
| 16 |
Vologodskaya oblast’ |
23,3
|
33,3
|
| 17 |
Voronezhskaya oblast’ |
23,9
|
33,1
|
| 18 |
Irkutskaya oblast’ |
25,8
|
37,8
|
| 19 |
Kaluzhskaya oblast’ |
19,1
|
23,9
|
| 20 |
Kurganskaya oblast’ |
20,9
|
27
|
| 21 |
Magadanskaya oblast’ |
20,3
|
20,3
|
| 22 |
Ryazanskaya oblast’ |
14,9
|
14,9
|
| 23 |
Sakhalinskaya oblast’ |
25,6
|
35,1
|
| 24 |
Sverdlovskaya oblast’ |
29,4
|
41,2
|
| 25 |
Tul’skaya oblast’ |
26,1
|
36,2
|
| 26 |
Ulyanovskaya oblast’ |
38,5
|
61,4
|
| 27 |
Chitinskaya oblast’ |
27
|
30,1
|
| 28 |
Yaroslavskaya oblast’ |
25,2
|
33,1
|
| 29 |
Koryaksky AO |
21,5
|
21,5
|
| 30 |
Nenezky AO |
29,4
|
21
|
| 31 |
Taymirsky (Dolgano-Nenetzky AO) |
22,7
|
22,7
|
| 32 |
Ust’-Ordinsky Buryatsky AO |
18,5
|
23,9
|
| 33 |
Yamalo-Nenetky AO |
21,2
|
23,6
|
| |
Total / In general |
23,1
|
30,4
|
| |
Russian State Duma 2003 |
36
|
59
|
In the country as a whole the representation of "Edinaya Rossiya"
in regional parliaments in 2,2 times exceeds its results on elections.
Conducting an analysis basing on all these parameters all federal
and regional elec-tions for last 10 years we shall receive the following
picture:
| ¹ |
Region of Russian Federation |
The general rating of democratic character of
elections |
The general estimation of democratic character
of elections |
| 1 |
Republic of Bashkortostan |
1
|
Very low
|
| 2 |
Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya |
1
|
Very low
|
| 3 |
Republic of Kalmykiya |
1
|
Very low
|
| 4 |
Republic of Mordoviya |
1
|
Very low
|
| 5 |
Republic of Severnaya Osetiya - Alaniya |
1
|
Very low
|
| 6 |
Republic of Tatarstan |
1
|
Very low
|
| 7 |
Republic of Tyva |
1
|
Very low
|
| 8 |
Orlovskaya oblast’ |
1
|
Very low
|
| 9 |
Chukotsky AO |
1
|
Very low
|
| 10 |
Republic of Adygeya |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 11 |
Republic of Ingushetiya |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 12 |
Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkesiya |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 13 |
Republic of Chuvashiya |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 14 |
Kemerovskaya oblast’ |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 15 |
Yamalo-Nenetzky AO |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| 16 |
Aginsky Buryatsky AO |
1,5
|
Very low
|
| |
| 1 |
Republic of Buratiya |
2
|
Low
|
| 2 |
Belgorodskaya oblast’ |
2
|
Low
|
| 3 |
Moscow |
2
|
Low
|
| 4 |
Khanty-Mansiysky AO |
2
|
Low
|
| 5 |
Taymirsky (Dolgano-Nenetzky AO) |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 6 |
Vologodskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 7 |
Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 8 |
Murmanskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 9 |
Orenburgskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 10 |
Penzenskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 11 |
Saratovskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| 12 |
Tambovskaya oblast’ |
2,5
|
Low
|
| |
| 1 |
Republic of Udmurtiya |
3
|
Average
|
| 2 |
Khabarovsky krai |
3
|
Average
|
| 3 |
Novgorodskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 4 |
Samarskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 5 |
Tumenskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 6 |
Chitinskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 7 |
Evenkiysky AO |
3
|
Average
|
| 8 |
Chelyabinskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 9 |
Kurskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 10 |
Magadanskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 11 |
Sverdlovskaya oblast’ |
3
|
Average
|
| 12 |
Koryaksky AO |
3
|
Average
|
| |
| 1 |
Republic of Altay |
3,5
|
High
|
| 2 |
Bryanskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 3 |
Irkutskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 4 |
Lipetzkaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 5 |
Novosibirskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 6 |
Komi-Permyazkiy AO |
3,5
|
High
|
| 7 |
Yaroslavskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 8 |
Ust’-Ordinsky Buratsky AO |
3,5
|
High
|
| 9 |
Republic of Kareliya |
3,5
|
High
|
| 10 |
Republic of Khakassiya |
3,5
|
High
|
| 11 |
Altaisky krai |
3,5
|
High
|
| 12 |
Krasnodarsky krai |
3,5
|
High
|
| 13 |
Voronezhskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 14 |
Moskovskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 15 |
Omskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 16 |
Permskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 17 |
Rostovskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 18 |
Tomskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 19 |
Evreyskaya AO |
3,5
|
High
|
| 20 |
Primorsky krai |
3,5
|
High
|
| 21 |
Kamchatskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 22 |
Sakhalinskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 23 |
Ulyanovskaya oblast’ |
3,5
|
High
|
| 24 |
Saint-Petersburg |
3,5
|
High
|
| 25 |
Krasnoyarsky krai |
4
|
High
|
| 26 |
Republic of Mari El |
4
|
High
|
| 27 |
Kostromskaya oblast’ |
4
|
High
|
| 28 |
Kurganskaya oblast’ |
4
|
High
|
| 29 |
Tul’skaya oblast’ |
4
|
High
|
| 30 |
Republic of Komi |
4
|
High
|
| 31 |
Volgogradskaya oblast’ |
4
|
High
|
| 32 |
Leningradskaya oblast’ |
4
|
High
|
| 33 |
Nenetzky AO |
4
|
High
|
| |
| 1 |
Stavropolsky krai |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 2 |
Astrakhanskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 3 |
Vladimirskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 4 |
Ivanovskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 5 |
Kaluzhskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 6 |
Kirovskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 7 |
Ryazanskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 8 |
Amurskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 9 |
Arkhangel’skaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 10 |
Kaliningradskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 11 |
Nizhegorodskaya oblast’ |
4,5
|
Very high
|
| 12 |
Pskovskaya oblast’ |
5
|
Very high
|
| 13 |
Smolenskaya oblast’ |
5
|
Very high
|
| 14 |
Tverskaya oblast’ |
5
|
Very high
|
Alongside with obvious things, we have some unexpected in this
table. For those who con-fuses democratic character of region with
democratic character of sights, or to say exactly, statements of
governors, it is unusual to see in group of "most non-democratic"
regions Chu-vashiya, alongside with Bashkortostan, Kalmykia and
the Oryol regions. Republic of Chu-vashiya, whose quite authoritative
mode successfully covers democratic image of president Fedorov,
who had 11 years of stay at authority to become fairly "bronzy".
The myth about democratic character of Moscow, which deservedly
is included into group of regions with low democratic character
of elections, is discredited.
In contrary, a high estimation of democratic character of elections
in such regions as Ryazanskaya and especially Ulyanovskaya oblast
will certainly cause bewilderment of ex-perts and the democratic
public. However, the matter is that real democratic character of
elec-tions and democratic character of regional conditions in general
depends on ideas and speeches of regional Heads of administration
of region in extremely insignificant degree. De-terminative factors
here are real concentration of authority's and financial resources
in hands of one person or one clan. And another, extremely important
factor is readiness of citizens to obey to infringement of their
rights.
For example, discharge of Victor Cherepkovs from elections in Primorsky
krai and at-tempts of the federal authorities to impose Gennady
Apanasenko (the assistant to plenipoten-tiary representative of
President) as the governor has led to record growth of protest voting
and defeat of the Center's protege in the second round. In Bashkortostan
the similar electoral conflict happened because of participation
of Sergey Veremeenko in elections. The conflict has ended with agreement
between regional elites the Center. Voters reacted languidly, or
its better to say - not reacted at all.
And now the main things. To understand what's happening in Russia
it is necessary to take a look at things from which level the quality
and democratic character of our lives de-pend. And as regions are
so different, there are opportunities for the analysis. We used
three spheres: economy, standard of living and democratic character.
We have constructed and cal-culated integrated parameters for each
of spheres separately in each of 88 regions, and then we measured
relations between level of economical development and standards
of living, along with correlation between economy and democracy
and separately in each of 88 regions. Then we have measured relations
between level of development of economy and a standard of living,
and also relations between economy and democracy and between a standard
of living and a level of democracy separately.
We have got three conclusions. First conclusion: if the development
of economy influ-ences standards, then not decisively. Translating
from language of mathematics into Russian, the level of our life
depends on development of economy less than on third. The rest depends
on other factors. Second conclusion: factor of correlation between
democracy in region and economy = +0,13, what in translation to
Russian means "does not influence absolutely". Third conclusion:
factor of correlation between a standard of living and a level of
democracy = -0,12, that means almost the same. It means that hopes
of near-the-governmental "liberals" and "democrats"
that growth of economy and a standard of living will automatically
lead to growth of democracy are utopian. It won't happen.
So, the vector of Russia depends a little on economical development
and standards of living. But on what it depends? What remains in
a society exept economy, policy and a stan-dard of living, i.e.
social sphere? Exactly: the mentality. Consciousness. Feelings.
Moods. The Western world votes for its own interest. By head and
stomach. Russia votes by heart. Or it does not vote at all, allows
doing everything, almost everything with itself. Therefore it is
un-predictable. For a while.
Results of the second part of our project confirm conclusions of
the previous research - Russia has passed for last years from a
category of the countries partially free into the cate-gory of not
free countries.
What can make Russia to change a vector of the movement? We will
write about it in the next issues of "Novaya Gazeta"
|
