Navigating opposition strategies in presidential election 2024

As the presidential vote 2024 looms, Russian opposition is trying to develop the most sensible voting strategy under the current circumstances.

In the intricate landscape of political dissent in authoritarian regimes, the strategic use of highly orchestrated elections to delegitimize the ruling power has become a focal point for opposition movements.

A notable example is Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Belarus' opposition leader, whose unexpected emergence in a tightly controlled electoral process underscored the potential for electoral surprises to serve as catalysts for delegitimization. Despite the shared goal among the opposition to delegitimize the results of unfair elections, a schism persists in determining the most effective protest voting strategy.

This article delves into the three prominent alternatives presented to a Russian voter today – boycott, ‘lesser evil’ vote, and the symbolic ‘Noon Against Putin’ action – and explains the logic behind them.

1. BOYCOTT

In political regimes like today’s Russia, where elections are fully staged, unfair and lack genuine competition, boycotting them seems like the most obvious strategy. Boycotts might indeed be an effective strategy, especially in the election systems where overcoming the turnout threshold is required for the recognition of results valid. In such systems, massive non-participation in elections might lead to their disruption. Thus, an election boycott could have been a reasonable strategy to mobilize the opposition electorate in Russia before 2007.

However, in 2006 the minimum turnout threshold was abolished at the initiative of the ruling party United Russia. In practice, this means that today non-participation in elections only makes the election riggers' job easier. The lack of citizens’ interest in and control over voting creates an environment where election manipulators face fewer obstacles in carrying out their unlawful activities. At the same time, the call to participate in illegitimate elections frustrates many citizens, as they do not understand the urge to invest time in a procedure, the result of which is well known in advance.

2. 'LESSER EVIL' VOTE: SUPPORTING VLADISLAV DAVANKOV

Maxim Katz, a significant figure in the opposition circles, promotes a strategy focused on voting for Vladislav Davankov, a registered presidential candidate from the New People party. According to Katz, supporting Davankov’s candidacy would emphasize unity among opposition forces, rallying voters behind Davankov as a challenge to the incumbent regime.

In Katz’s rhetoric, Davankov is presented as a candidate who is committed to peace and offers a distinctive vision in contrast to his opponents. It is much simpler and safer to drop a secret (anonymous) ballot for Davankov than to collect signatures with personal data for Boris Nadezhdin, emphasizes Katz.

Katz's strategy urges voters to set aside temporary ideological differences and unite around Davankov. Notably, with other opposition candidates like Boris Nadezhdin and Ekaterina Duntsova failing to get registered by the Central Election Commission, Davankov emerges as the sole viable option for those hoping for change through the democratic process.

Ex-candidate Boris Nadezhdin has called for his supporters to vote for Vladislav Davankov, which cast a shadow over both of them, allowing speculations about both Nadezhdin and Davankov being affiliated with the Kremlin.

At the same time, the strategy of voting for Davankov as for a ‘lesser evil’ was not supported by other influential opposition forces. For example, Leonid Volkov from Navalny’s team said that one should not vote for the candidate of New People because “he [Davankov] voted in favor of the annexation [of Crimea], for annexing [other Ukrainian] regions, he is one of the war criminals, he is no better or worse than Putin”.

3. NAVALNY'S LEGACY: NOON AGAINST PUTIN

Inspired by the legacy of Alexey Navalny, third opposition strategy involves a symbolic act of protest at polling stations. The idea initially came up from ex-deputy of St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly Maxim Reznik.

Proponents of this strategy suggest voters arrive precisely at noon, intentionally spoil their ballots, and then leave peacefully. This form of protest voting is seen as a non-violent mean of expressing discontent with the lack of genuine alternatives to Putin on the ballot as well as electoral irregularities. Moreover, it is seen as the only legal form of protest in today’s Russia.

Alexey Navalny’s widow Julia Navalnaya urged support for the action. At the same time, it was backed by a number of influential oppositional forces, such as “For a just peace” (“Za spravedlivyi mir” by Evgeniy Stupin and Mikhail Lobanov), the movement of relatives of drafted men, popular Telegram channel “Eshkin Krot”, the new grassroots initiative “If not Putin, then a cat”, as well as by multiple journalists and experts.

Advocates of ‘Noon Against Putin’ argue that this symbolic act sends a powerful message, drawing attention to the need for a more inclusive and competitive political landscape in Russia. Although this approach does not unite voters around a specific candidate, it emphasizes the desire for a systemic change. Further, it makes election fraud more difficult – ballots that are already used cannot be turned into votes for Putin, as opposed to empty ballots.

As the opposition grapples with these strategies, voters face the challenge of choosing the approach that aligns best with their individual beliefs. Whether ignoring their voter’s right or supporting Davankov – not for his commitment to peace, but for his humble support of the war – or engaging in a symbolic protest vote at noon, Russian opposition is trying to navigate the complex choice dilemma and consolidate the demand for a democratic and representative future.