Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

138 Aleksandr Kynevof the total of voters listed in the electoral register at the close of voting.This very high minimum turnout allowed the authorities to facilitate thedisruption of elections when necessary and also to maintain the GreatKhural with a minimum quorum; since the elections were being constantlydisrupted many deputy mandates had not been taken up, and electionssometimes had to be held repeatedly for one and the same district.In eight regions the incumbent legislative bodies themselves decided abouttheir own re-election. The legislative governing body in the Primorskii Kraiwas not able to cope with the task of calling elections and the authority tocall them passed to the electoral commission of the Primorskii Krai, and thelatter duly took the decision on calling elections. A system of closed partylists was used in all these regions (i.e. the voters could not influence the dispositionof candidates in the list). Only the lists for the elections to theLegislative Chamber of the Great Khural of Tyva, the State Council ofChuvashiya, the State Duma of the Astrakhan Oblast and the LipetskRegional Council were to be broken down into sub-regional groups linked tospecific areas in these regions. However, in the case of Tyva this requirementwas optional for the party: the party could refuse to break its list down intosuch groups. In all the other regions the lists were ‘flat’, i.e. the candidatesfollowed one after another in strict order of hierarchy.These regions produced considerable differences in their mechanisms forregistering candidates and party lists. The most liberal requirements forregistration by collecting signatures were set in the Sverdlovsk Oblast (0.75per cent of signatures from the electoral register). The equivalent figure was1 per cent in Astrakhan and Novgorod Oblasts, Primorskii Krai, Kareliyaand Chuvashiya; in Lipetsk Oblast and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, 2per cent of the voters registered for each electoral district were required. InTyva the requirements were 1.5 per cent for single-member districts and 2per cent for party lists.The most liberal requirements for registering by paying a deposit were setin Kareliya (45,000 roubles for a single-member candidate and 150,000 roublesfor a party list), the Sverdlovsk Oblast (200,000 roubles for a party list),the Novgorod Oblast (50,000 roubles for a single-member candidate and300,000 roubles for a party list) and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (22,500roubles for a single-member candidate and 180,000 roubles for a party list).The size of the deposits appeared excessively high in Lipetsk Oblast andChuvashiya (both set 4.5 million roubles for parties, and Lipetsk Oblast had1.5 million roubles for a single-member candidate). This meant that to registerparty lists in Chuvashiya and Lipetsk Oblast the amount required was roughlythe equivalent of $170,000, and $140,000 in Tyva. A Lipetsk single-membercandidate would need $56,600. This seems all the more strange given thatChuvashiya and Tyva are not counted among the wealthier regions.As far as party lists are concerned, the greatest number of applications toparticipate in elections was made in the Primorskii Krai (thirteen) andSverdlovsk and Astrakhan Oblasts (eleven in each). After the completion of