Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

142 Aleksandr Kynevsubmitted, but not registered, by the Conceptual Party Unity, the RussianEcological Party (‘The Greens’) and the Russian Communist Workers’Party – the Russian Party of Communists (RKRP). The Party for RegionalDevelopment ‘Nature and Society’ and the People’s Patriotic Party of Russiawere recorded in only single-member districts in some regions.With regard to success at the elections, only one party entered the parliamentsin all nine regions, and this was United Russia; the CPRF crossed the7 per cent threshold in eight of the nine regions (everywhere apart fromTyva). The RPP entered the legislative assemblies in all six regions where itslists appeared on the voting papers. The RPL had four victories, and Rodina,Freedom and People’s Power and Free Russia each had one victory. TheLDPR only managed to get seats in regional parliaments in three regions,and this was the party’s worst result in recent years. If one takes into accountthe fact that a number of organizations lost their status as political parties on1 January 2006 and also the forthcoming amalgamation of the RPL, RPPand Rodina, the makeup of candidates for the next regional elections couldbe very different. According to information from the FRS, the followingparties are likely to lose their status: Freedom and People’s Power, RKRP,KP Yedineniye, Development of Enterprise, and the Popular Patriotic Party.A question hangs over the future of the Republican Party.United Russia’s campaign was run in the same inert style of 2005–6;despite a certain disorientation brought on by the appearance of the centre–left alliance, the regional elites proved unable to reorganize themselvesquickly enough. At the same time the senior figures of United Russia tried toretain their control over its regional branches as much as possible. To aneven greater extent than before the party used the technique of pre-election‘helping hands’ (candidates who would stand in the party list with the purposeof attracting extra voters, but who did not intend to be elected asdeputies). On this occasion governors headed its lists in eight out of the nineregions. Thus the party’s use of this technique affected 41.7 per cent of theregions in autumn 2005, on 12 March 2006 it affected 62.5 per cent and on 8October 2006 it now affected 89 per cent of the regions. Mayors of cities(predominantly in regional centres), deputies to the State Duma, directors ofvery large enterprises, etc., also figured extensively in United Russia’s lists, inaddition to governors. Other parties also used the technique of ‘helpinghands’, but to a much lesser extent than United Russia.The key players in forming United Russia’s lists for regional elections wereundoubtedly governors and their teams. One of the leaders of the party,Volodin, formulated an ‘ideal pattern’ for how to head a party list: the governor,the mayor of the regional centre and the speaker of the legislativeassembly. All the regional party lists tried to get as close as possible to thispattern. A strategy was generally selected of minimizing turnout at elections(this was obviously provoked by both the removal of the ‘against all’ box andthe reduction in the overall total of parties and candidates), which wouldincrease the part played by voters who depended on the administration.