The first post-Putin elections: What they might look like

This article belongs to a series of op-eds by Dr. Grigory Golosov, a political science expert, published by the online magazine Holod, an independent Russian socio-political media. The series is dedicated to post-Putin Russia and possible scenarios of regime change. Here we present a translation of the original article in Russian that came out in July 2023.

To stay updated, follow Holod on Instagram,Telegram (in Russian) or Twitter (in English). You may also support Holod by donating.

In an earlier article, I mentioned that prioritizing free elections may not be an immediate priority during the initial phases of Russia's liberalization or democratization. Yet even if this is not the ideal scenario, we shouldn't dismiss this possibility. For now, it's worth considering the guidelines these elections would follow.

I would like to emphasize that in the current political climate, fixing Russian elections by improving the rules is pointless. These elections are held mainly to maintain power for those who already have it; to some extent, they ensure the rotation of deputies when the authorities find it appropriate. In this system, elections have practically no value as a platform to create opportunities for the opposition.

In the context of political shifts, elections will inevitably fulfill their primary role: ensuring a transition of power that best reflects the people's preferences. While we can't predict these preferences, they will be shaped by the very political process that paves the way for genuine, free elections.

Much of this process depends on the participants involved and the resources they have access to. However, neglecting the preferences of the public can lead to significant disillusionment with election results. This sentiment was evident following the 1996 presidential elections. While they were more transparent than the elections of the 2000s and 2010s, they were perceived by the nation's populace as misleading. In the medium term, this perception inflicted considerable harm on Russia's democratization efforts. This is because, even for those not deeply involved in politics, there is an innate understanding of a fundamental tenet of liberal-democratic theory: if a governing body that neglects its responsibilities remains unchanged post-election, then there's an inherent flaw in the democratic process.

Naturally, the true preferences of the populace can only be accurately conveyed when there's a clear understanding of the principles guiding their expression in elections. If voters do not have such clarity, it might be more sensible to choose officials by random selection, as was done in ancient city-states. However, contemporary democracy is representative in nature, necessitating the articulation of representation principles. These principles are manifested in two primary electoral systems: majority and proportional. These types can also be combined into mixed electoral systems.

It's important to note that in majority systems, elections take place in constituencies with a limited number of seats. Here, voters cast their ballots for individual candidates. The candidates who secure the most votes (a relative majority) or exceed half of the total votes (an absolute or simple majority) are declared winners. On the other hand, in proportional systems, elections typically occur in constituencies with a more substantial number of representatives. Voters choose party lists, and seats are allocated roughly based on the proportion of votes each list garners. Understandably, in elections where a single individual is elected to a role, such as a presidential or gubernatorial position, only majority-based systems are relevant. While there are exceptions to these generalizations, we won't delve into those specifics at this moment.

Concerning the principle of representation, which is fundamental to majority systems, there's a prevailing belief among the politically-engaged public that the primary benefit of this type of election is the ability to vote for specific individuals rather than parties. This assumption is also highlighted in academic and expert writings. However, in past Russian political debates, when discussions were both meaningful and action-oriented, this trait was frequently emphasized as the defining feature of majority systems, and their paramount advantage. I firmly believe that the misconceptions and biases rooted in the 1990s will resurface the moment the topic of genuine elections again gains prominence. Hence, this subject warrants a more detailed examination.

Indeed, there are proportional electoral systems that allow voting “for specific individuals.” We'll explore this in further detail later. Broadly speaking, it's undeniable that majority systems facilitate this kind of voting, often termed "personal," in a comprehensive manner. The real question, however, isn't about the existence of this feature, but whether it offers any benefits in the context of representation.

When considering elections aimed at filling a singular position, such as that of a president or governor, the value of "personal voting" becomes evident. It's worth mentioning that in the early days of American electoral research, spanning from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s, scholars often viewed "personal voting" in such elections as a clear sign of voters' political naivete or even outright ignorance. The prevailing thought was that a truly informed voter should base their decision on the candidates' programmatic or ideological stances, while focusing on candidates' personal attributes was deemed simplistic. However, scientific perspectives on this matter have since evolved.

"Personal voting" in presidential and comparable elections continues to be a widespread phenomenon. Notably, it persists even as political awareness and engagement among voters increase. It's evident that Americans, who intensively engaged with Obama's and Trump's tweets, had a heightened political interest compared to their peers. Yet it's undeniable that their fascination with these politicians was significantly personal in nature. Individuals — not just the uninformed — were as captivated by Obama's and Trump's personal attributes as they were by their political platforms.

It's easy to grasp this viewpoint, especially considering that platforms like Twitter weren't available in the past to catch every single thought politicians were dishing out. Early electoral research overlooked the fact that in presidential and analogous elections, voters not only backed politicians with views that aligned with their own, but also those who convincingly demonstrated their commitment to actualizing these views once in power. In this context, a politician's personal attributes become crucial. If a leadership candidate articulates the right messages but comes off as a clown, a weakling, a fraud, or remains a mystery, then choosing not to vote for them is entirely logical and far from naive. Such candidates often don't receive significant support. A clear illustration of this can be seen in the track record of "placeholder candidates" who opposed Putin in Russia's presidential elections since 2000.

However, in elections where there's a single winner, a proportional system isn't applicable. Only majority-based systems apply in such scenarios. So, let's put our question in another way: Does what I mentioned regarding personal voting in presidential and analogous elections hold true for elections of larger bodies, such as parliaments?

In well-established democracies, both majoritarian systems (like those in the USA, UK, and France) and proportional frameworks (prevalent in many European nations) are utilized for parliamentary elections. Perhaps the architects of these election regulations have it right by enabling voters to cast ballots for specific individuals. Yet this notion holds weight only if the personal attributes of candidates in such elections genuinely matter to the electorate.

In reality, this condition holds true. There are multiple ways to demonstrate this. Let's begin with some broad observations. Presidential elections hold immense significance and hence, generate vast attention from the electorate. Even citizens with a passing interest in politics are inclined to dedicate their time to collecting and comprehending detailed information about the leading candidates; and with the media providing ample information, this is hardly a challenge. In other elections, where only one position is at stake, personal attributes may be less important. However, the principle of easy information access still stands. This makes the act of voting for a "specific individual" entirely achievable. Take, for example, a candidate in a municipal election within a small settlement. While the candidate may be a stranger beyond their village's boundaries, within that locale, practically everyone knows the candidate like the back of their hand.

In nations where presidents wield substantial authority, rather than serving merely symbolic roles, parliamentary elections are understandably considered less important than presidential ones. This sentiment is mirrored in the electorate's attitude, as they often pay less attention to these elections and the limited information available about individual candidates. In other words, in parliamentary elections, "personal voting" becomes less impactful than in presidential ones; not just because the stakes are perceived to be lower, but also due to the greater effort required for thorough research. Given these circumstances, voters tend to shift their focus from the personal attributes of candidates to other, more efficient methods of making an informed decision.

Now, let's examine whether voting for a specific individual is the primary driving force for voters in parliamentary elections in countries where majoritarian systems theoretically permit such voting. Take the USA as an example; while there's a notable degree of personal voting, the primary factor influencing American voters in Congressional elections is still party allegiance. For those with lukewarm party loyalties, this may not hold true. However, voters frequently support the sitting member of Congress, often overlooking their personal attributes. The fact that British voters predominantly vote along party lines hardly needs further elaboration.

There is also a proportional system, known as the "open-list" system, that allows voting for “specific individuals.” In this system, voters can either support the party as a whole or select an individual candidate from its roster. Italy employed this system for many years, so there's extensive experience with its application. This experience consistently indicates that when given a choice between voting for a specific individual or a party, the majority leans towards voting for a party. You can only make people vote for a specific person by removing the option to vote for a party, as is the case in Finland.

The aforementioned points don't suggest that majoritarian systems are fundamentally flawed; rather, they indicate that their strength is not exclusively to offer enhanced methods of personal voting. While they possess certain merits, they also come with drawbacks when compared with proportional systems. These aspects will be explored further in upcoming articles.

Author: Grigory Golosov

The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect those of the editorial board.