Watching democracy in action
MOSCOW
I SOMETIMES get the feeling that Russians may be paying more attention to the American presidential race than to their own. With none of the "horse race" media coverage we take for granted, or an uncertain outcome, the only sign an election is on are the official billboards around the city reminding you to vote March 2.
Instead of allowing citizens to choose their leaders, elections here are solicitations of support for an already made decision. Russia's future leadership has been a foregone conclusion since December when President Vladimir Putin tapped First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as his successor. The political coverage is dreary: Medvedev drips out bits of his "program" for the future, and the usual "what Putin did today" coverage continues with Medvedev usually in tow. There is a "campaign" underway, with free ads on state-run television and a series of debates, but Medvedev has already chosen not to participate.
Winston Churchill once famously said Kremlin power struggles are like bulldogs fighting under a carpet: you hear a lot of growling but don't know who won until one of them emerges. Medvedev's selection came after hints of a power struggle behind the Kremlin's walls between the hard-line security services and Western-leaning reformers. In that light, Medvedev is by far the least bad option. His background is as a civil lawyer, not a KGB spook, and his current portfolio focuses on domestic projects in health, housing, economic development, and education. He takes a mild tone in describing Russian-US relations, compared with Putin's regular chest-thumping.
The other choices on the ballot are a raving nationalist, a tired Communist, and the leader of something called the "Democratic Party of Russia." That last one reeks of one of the Kremlin's famous "political technologies," a sort of stalking horse to discredit the few real opposition parties left. Members of this party cartoonishly demand immediate European Union membership.
Having fewer choices seems to appeal to Russians. A recent poll from the state-run polling agency found Medvedev is supported by 63 percent of voters. Many were traumatized by the shock, despair, and uncertainty of the 1990s. Most voters are happy to quietly defer to Putin and his circle if it brings the kind of stability that can prevent their life savings from being vaporized overnight, as happened in 1998.
The terms of the social contract include a belief that Russia "needs" strong central power, and must pursue its own course. The Kremlin constantly reminds people about the bad old days to justify the centralized "power vertical," and the exceptionalism of "sovereign democracy." Voters keep quiet, the media knows to follow the rules, oligarchs cooperate, and pro-Kremlin "youth groups" are kept poised for public shows of support.
In most foreign reporting, the Russian media present democracy as uncontrolled chaos. They gleefully note how confused, and hint at how corrupt, things are in young democracies like Ukraine and Georgia, where voting often leads to street violence, mob rule, and kleptocracy.
But even against this backdrop, coverage of the US primaries has been extensive and careful, and perhaps not solely because of America's singular importance. By necessity, most reports spend most of their time explaining US electoral arcana - the difference between a primary and a caucus, and how geography and demography shape each state's vote.
Of course, the Russian media spotlights every mention of Russia by the candidates. Senator John McCain has come under much fire for his oft-repeated line about Putin, that he "looked into his eyes, and I saw three letters - K, G, B." Hillary Clinton, too, has been singled out. Even though her husband has been buddying up with other post-Soviet strongmen like President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, she insisted in January that Putin "was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn't have a soul, I mean this is a waste of time, right, this is nonsense."
The media are fascinated by Barack Obama, not just because of the novelty of his campaign, but also his unwillingness to preemptively write off relations with Russia.
I remember around the New Year holidays bashfully explaining to friends how flawed the primary process is, that a few voters in Iowa and New Hampshire would decide the whole thing. But as it has dragged on - to the dismay of party loyalists on both sides - I feel better about it. In a strange way, it is setting a good example for the rest of the world.
Christopher Marcisz is a freelance journalist living in Moscow.
