Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

The problem of effective representation 175situation remained unresolved until the party was assimilated into the newcoalition, ‘A Just Russia’.As a result, the regional branches of all three of the coalition partnerswhich made up A Just Russia, which were meant to be united, were in realityunder the control of different elite groups. That is why their merger wassuch a difficult enterprise. The December 2006 election slowed down theprocess since it was held before the unified party congress and before A JustRussia had gained the right to participate in elections. At the same time theelection intensified the contradictions between the three partners. TheRussian Party of Life refused to take part in the election, but the two other‘partners’ decided to enter it on their own. During the election campaign theconflict became so sharp that Sevostyanova declared that unification wasimpossible and the central leadership of A Just Russia even tried to withdrawRodina from the election. 50 As a result in December 2006 the RussianPensioners’ Party got fewer votes than was expected (11.65 per cent, andfour seats in assembly) and Rodina did not manage to overcome the electoralthreshold at all (3.19 per cent).In addition to the parties discussed above there are a number of otherregional branches of parties with good electoral prospects. The AgrarianParty commands considerable electoral resources. In the December 2006election it just failed to clear the 7 per cent electoral threshold, winning 6.34per cent of the votes. 51 The ‘Patriots of Russia’ party won 2.44 per cent ofthe votes, but the party has suffered from a lack of popular leaders.Since party formation is a costly endeavour, it can be regarded as a businessin its ‘purest form’. Under the new rules of the game created by therecent changes to the electoral rules, those parties that were created by politicaltechnologists ‘for sale’ have suddenly developed a certain appeal. Onesuch party, Free Russia, has attracted the patronage of governor Chirkunov.Several politicians joined its regional branch, and in April 2006 it formed afaction in the regional legislature. Free Russia is known in the country as a‘killer party’, which has occasionally been used in elections to steal votes fromother parties. Nevertheless, a short time later Chirkunov rejected this project.Thus, the Perm case study illustrates that the key political actors in theregion have begun to actively utilize regional branches of political parties,primarily as instruments for building up their political resources. Hence,particularist interests in party activity clearly dominate over universalist. Theless important values and ideas are for a party, the more autonomous are itsregional organizations. This gives regional actors additional incentives toparticipate in party formation. Here, three main strategies can be identified.Some actors are trying to play on United Russia’s field, which causes splitsand conflicts within the regional branch of the ‘party in power’. Others areseeking to extend their control over the existing regional branches with asignificant electoral potential. A third kind of actors are getting involvedwith marginal regional organizations and have to invest significant resourcesin order to increase their attractiveness.