Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

Municipal elections 291Tatishchevskii rural settlement. In the Tula Region average turnout inmunicipal districts varied from a low of 15.81 in the city of Efremov (whichwas below the 20 per cent minimum) to a high of 38.99 in Kamenskii raion.Votes ‘Against All’Low turnout in many cases may not simply reflect the apathy of the electoratebut rather the belief on the part of citizens that: (1) the elections arecorrupt, (2) there is no meaningful choice of candidates or parties, and (3)local government has no real power. Here, the percentage of votes cast‘against all candidates’ is an excellent additional guide to the levels of politicaldissatisfaction amongst the electorate. Indeed, the ‘vote against all’ canbe viewed as an excellent barometer of the integrity of elections. Where thepercentage of votes against all is unusually high, it is usually for a reason –Russian citizens are showing their disapproval in the only way permitted.Overall, in the local elections conducted in 2004-5 an average of 18.8 percent of the participants chose to voice their protest by this method. However,in many municipalities the figure was much higher and in some cases newelections had to be called, as the ‘votes against all’ received the highest support.27 In Saratov Oblast the level of such protest voting varied between alow of 2.51 per cent in Ivanteevsk raion to 16.92 per cent in Balakovskraion. In Tula Oblast there were more protest votes, which ranged from10.27 per cent in Kamenskii raion to a high of 22.5 per cent in the city ofKimov (see Table 13.2).Where there are low levels of turnout combined with high percentages of‘votes against all’, the legitimacy of the election is much more sharplybrought into question. Thus for example, in Balakovsk raion (SaratovRegion) there was a relatively low turnout of 36.86 and a relatively highpercentage of protest votes of 16.92 per cent. In Tula in almost every districtthere were low turnout rates combined with sizeable percentages of protestvotes. In the city of Kimov there was a low turnout of 21.57 per cent combinedwith a protest vote of 22.5 per cent (see Table 13.2). Likewise, whereturnout was high, protest voting was low. Thus, for example, in PiterskiiTable 13.1 Average turnout in Russian local elections 2004–05 (%)Average turnout (per cent)LocalcouncilsRural settlements 56.4 54.8City settlements 40.63 41.86Municipal raions 50.46 51.65City districts 38.45 41.75Heads of municipalitiesSource: L. F. Dem 0 yanchenko (ed.), Reforma Mestnovo Samoupravleniya v RossiiskoiFederatsii: Itogi Munitsipal 0 Nykh Vyborov v 2004-2005 Godakh, Moscow: Tsentral0 naya Izbiratel 0 naya Komissiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2006, p. 8.