As of Sunday night, official results of the elections had not yet been released.

The elections are widely being seen as a test of President Dmitri Medvedev’s stated desire to reform the country’s electoral system. Election observers and opposition parties were vehement in their denouncement of last October’s regional elections, which were fraught with accusations of blatant and widespread fraud and in which United Russia was overwhelmingly successful. The president refused to annul the elections, but he later made several proposals for reform, saying that United Russia “needs to learn how to win in an open fight.”

The prognosis so far is not very good. Reports of violations for the March 14 elections began pouring in during early voting before the elections even began. According to the Kasparov.ru online newspaper, the liberal Yabloko party was banned from running in legislative elections in every region of the country. Golos, Russia’s primary independent electoral watchdog, summarized the violations that had been reported throughout the day on Sunday: “unauthorized persons present at the polling stations, limiting the rights of voters, observers, the mass media and members of electoral commissions, as well as numerous cases of organized voting with absentee ballots, transportation of voters to polling stations, and bribing voters in some regions.”

The list of reported violations includes many that Golos is calling “typical” and that have been noted in Russian elections for years. Sunday’s reports that companies, universities, and the military have organized expeditions to voting stations and forced their members to vote for United Russia are nearly identical to reports from during Russia’s presidential election in 2008. Similar, too, was abuse of the absentee ballot system: Russians are not allowed to vote by mail, and instead are allowed to cast an absentee ballots at any polling station that they chose. Historically, the system has enabled widespread violations.

Below is a sampling of Golos’ 461 recorded allegations of voter fraud and electoral violations.

• Ostrogozhsk. Journalist Oleg Demidov from the Grazhdansky Golos newspaper was attacked by three unknown assailants who broke his camera. The police refused to detain the assailants and instead took Demidov to the police station. Additionally, photographs of United Russia candidates had been hung on the walls of several of the town’s voting stations.

• Yekaterinburg. Workers at the Uralmash machine manufacturer were transported to voting stations and ordered by their managers to vote for United Russia. It is worth noting that Uralmash’s largest stockholder is Gazprombank, which is owned by the government-controlled oil giant Gazprom.

• Yekaterinburg. Workers at the Pnevmostroymashina factory were ordered to vote for United Russia by absentee ballot at a polling station designated by the company, and to photograph their ballot while they were in the voting booth to show to management the next day.

• Berezovsky. A bus was observed carrying voters from the nearby city of Yekaterinburg who came to the town, voted by absentee ballot and then left.

• Ivanovo. Fifty students at the Ivanovo Academy of Chemistry complained that the school had ordered them “to fulfill your constitutional right to vote early” and vote on March 11 for United Russia. They were also told “not to tempt fate, and, in the case that you don’t vote for the designated candidate, not to hope for a favorable attitude towards you in the future. Political myopia will be the basis for your expulsion from the university and troubles of a similar perspective.”

• Astrakhan. Unknown persons parked a car next to a polling station that was located nearby a building known for its beleaguered residents, and were distributing vodka in exchange for pledges of votes. The report did not specify what party the residents were asked to vote for.

• Krasnodarsky Krai. A banner printed with “United Russia” was hung above the entrance to a voting station. According to the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, vodka and other hard liquor was being sold under the banner.

• Tula. After the fact, votes were noticed to have been cast by people known to be dead. Observers also noted that 500 ruble (about $17) coupons were being distributed to people in exchange for their promises to vote for United Russia. Additionally, journalists were barred from entering voting stations, and election observers were forced off the grounds of the local electoral commission.

• Ryazan. Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) candidate Yevgeny Dronov attempted to intervene when he saw people paying voters to cast their ballots for United Russia candidate Oleg Maslyuk. Immediately afterwards, several young men jumped out of an approaching car and began to beat him. The police officer who arrived at the scene refused to detain the assailants, failing even to ask for their identification.

• Ryazan. In an apparent attempt to humiliate the LDPR, unknown agitators were seen handing out bags of groceries printed with the LDPR logo.

• Yekaterinburg. Vladimir Mostovshchikov, electoral commission representative for of Sverdlovskaya region, announced on a local television channel that voters holding temporary registrations should feel free to vote wherever they wanted to even without using absentee ballots – which is illegal. He later attempted to deny that he said this, but Golos maintains that they have proof of the statement.

• Irkutsk. A court decision on Friday evening eliminated one of the main electoral candidates, but the candidate’s name was unable to be removed from the ballot in time. Voters and electoral commissioners alike were confused as a result.

• Omsk. Journalists were barred from entering a number of polling stations, and some were confined to areas designated for the media from which it was impossible to observe the electoral commission’s work. Despite this, journalists did note several instances of ballot stuffing.

Chairman Valentin Gorbunov made the statement during a session of the electoral commission, saying that it would be worth considering creating an electoral code for the Russian Federation.

Gorbunov explained that while numerous amendments were being introduced to Russia’s current electoral legislation, the system was so flawed that any such amendments would only be band-aids to more systematic problems.

“You can’t get a Mercedes from a Moskvich,” explained Gorbunov, referencing Russia’s legendarily faulty line of domestic cars. “In order to get a Mercedes, you need to build it from scratch.”

Elections in Russia are notoriously fraudulent. Regional elections on October 11 delivered sweeping wins for the Kremlin-backed United Russia party across the country, continuing the political monopoly it has held since its conception in 2001. Observers noted massive electoral violations, much of which has been statistically documented. President Dmitri Medvedev himself admitted on multiple occasions that the elections were flawed. A recent poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center concluded that less than half of Muscovites trust the results of the elections.

Recent attempts at reforming Russia’s electoral legislation have largely fallen short. Negotiations in the State Duma to create an internal electoral monitoring committee died after two months, and statements by President Medvedev in November that the system was in need of reform have thus far garnered no tangible results.

“There is such information,” he said. “I cannot speak specifically.”

According to Borisov, agents “came to Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine.” “The result is known to all,” he said, apparently referring to bloodless “color revolutions” which took place in those countries. The CEC member added that “today there is absolutely no democracy in the OSCE.” Borisov went on to say that monitors from the West have exerted political pressure on Russian election officials.

Russia has been critical of European electoral monitors, while observers have complained of increasing efforts on the part of authorities to stymie their work. In February, the OSCE cancelled its missions to the Russian presidential election citing interference from authorities. A December 2007 mission was critical of the way Parliamentary elections were handled.

Government critics have pointed out widespread electoral violations in Russia and have suggested that the results of both Parliamentary and Presidential elections were largely falsified. One computer expert created statistical models indicating that results were most likely “rounded up” by local electoral commissions.

The OSCE has denied that it has any intention of politicizing electoral monitoring missions.

Still, Borisov was starkly critical of the organization in a separate interview with the Vesti news program on July 20th. “The OSCE proclaims its adherence to democratic principles and methods,” he said, “but it works in a different way.

“Russia is trying to rescue the international election monitoring institute,” he went on. “We suggest clear-cut principles of election monitoring: transparency, collegiality, impartiality, respect for sovereign rights of a host country and so on. Everyone, including our Western partners, agree with that.”

Borisov’s statements come simultaneously with a new proposal by the CEC to drastically reform the OSCE. As the Gazeta.ru online newspaper reports on July 23rd, Russia suggested sweeping reforms at an OSCE electoral monitoring conference, which took place from July 21st to the 22nd in Vienna.

Alexander Ivanchenko, the head of the Russian Center for Electoral Techniques Training within the CEC, noted one proposal that would effectively shut out Western European observers altogether:

“Participation in international election monitoring should only be open to representatives of countries whose laws contain provisions on the institution of international observation and have an established practice of inviting international observers to monitor their own elections.”

Russia takes an active role in its own international monitoring projects, and will send a mission to monitor the US presidential election this fall.

According to the party’s data, the pro-Kremlin United Russia party received around 200 thousand votes illegally during the election. Vadim Solovyev, a party legal expert, said this was 10 times the number of votes stolen during the 2003 election, when the Communists also attempted to contest the results.

According to electoral law, the court may annul voting results issued by the Central Electoral Commission if violations are found in certain election procedures. These include problems with forming voter lists, vote counting, and other breaches of the law that contradict the true will of the electorate.

As result, the KPRF is filing a lawsuit consisting of five parts. To start, they charge that media coverage was skewed, as their research found that United Russia received 70% of all television airtime. Further, they add that campaigning laws were broken in favor of United Russia, and that voters were given false information.

Finally, the largest part of the suit deals with discrepancies in voting figures between records given to electoral observers and official vote counts, as well as complaints against electoral officials. The Communists will present evidence of fraud in 26 regions. By their data, votes were added to the tickets of United Russia, as well the other major parties, including Just Russia, LDPR, and even Yabloko in certain regions.

At just one polling station in the Moscow oblast, the KPRF found that 1225 votes were thrown in for United Russia.

Meanwhile, the Central Electoral Commission sees the move by the Communists as an “empty bother.” Gennady Raikov, a member of the Commission told Vedomosti that the agency had already examined all complaints about the election, and has found that they did not significantly effect the results. Still, the KPRF has pledged to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if their Supreme Court effort is rebuffed.

—

Further reading:

Statistical Evidence of Russian Poll Fraud

Fraud, Interference in Russian Elections

In part, the resolution decries the “disproportionate use of force” and violence used against demonstrators during March 3rd opposition protests known as “Marches of Dissent.” It demands that an investigation be mounted, and that those responsible be brought to justice, calling for the release of those protesters still behind bars. The Parliament also regrets the fact that Russia regards an electoral monitoring mission from the OSCE as interference in Russia’s internal affairs, and deplores the “illegal treatment of opposition candidates” in the election.

At its Strasbourg session, MEPs also called on Dmitri Medvedev, in his new capacity as president of the Russian Federation, to review the treatment of imprisoned public figures, including Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, “whose imprisonment has been assessed by most observers as having been politically motivated.”

The resolution was enacted in consideration of “increased pressure on opposition groups and non-governmental organisations to refrain from any activities directed against the president and the government, preventing the media from reporting on any such activities.”

It also notes that “democracy has been weakened in Russia, in particular by the government control of all major TV stations and most radio stations, the spread of self-censorship among the print media, new restrictions on the right to organise public demonstrations and a worsening climate for non-governmental organisations.”

The European Parliament also calls on Russia to foster the necessary conditions to create a new “Partnership and Cooperation Agreement” between EU member states and the Russian Federation, commenting that “that respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights must be an important part of any future agreement with Russia.” The previous agreement expired in 2007.

Read the complete resolution here.

As the Sobkor®ru news agency reports, Golos has taken hundreds of phone calls on its elections hotlines. The organization has received 199 calls describing transgressions of voting procedure, 72 reports of pressure on voters, 39 of falsified of documents, 28 reports of voter bribery, 17 of unlawful campaigning, 23 of misuse of administrative resources, 68 on the violation of rights of electoral monitors and representatives of the mass-media, and 2 vote counting violations.

As Golos expert Lilia Shibanova told press, “the most serious danger” at this election was misuse of administrative resource. According to Shibanova, the group has evidence that there are grave violations taking place across Russia. She noted several: individuals ferried by bus from polling station to polling station, voting under pressure from municipal authorities and representatives of the administration, and artificially inflating turnout by voting from home, wherein electoral officials walked door to door with ballots.

Churov noted that some 200 monitors would be present for the contest, which will be held this Sunday, March 2nd. Experts have noted that the number is far smaller than past elections, when a larger share of international bodies came to Russia.

This election year, a series of prominent watchdog groups have refused to observe the election. The first were two wings of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the Parliamentary Assembly. The two groups cited limits from authorities.

Next were the Northern Council, and nearly every individual country sending a delegation: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Hungary, Spain, and the United States. Their given reason for declining Russia’s invitation was simpler: busy domestic schedules. Some analysts feel their move showed solidarity with the more prominent monitoring bodies, without politicizing their refusal.

As result, Russia’s elections will be observed by representatives of the CIS, a small group from the Council of Europe, China and Japan. These monitors are arriving less than a week before the contest.

Still, CIS observers pledged to watch the most densely populated parts of the country. Ural Mukhamedzhanov, the coordinator of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly mission, promised to track Russia’s compliance with international requirements. “Russian laws fully conform to international standards,” he said.

Maxim Reznik, the leader of the St. Petersburg branch of the Yabloko party, was convinced:

“It’s clear [the closure] was politically motivated,” Reznik told the Guardian newspaper. “We are observing a change in the political regime in Russia from authoritarianism to totalitarianism. What happened here is one example among many.”

Fire officials first inspected the buildings on January 18th. University staff said that since then, they have made major improvements. They have appealed the court decision.

Some analysts said the action seemed uncalled-for. Kommersant quoted Andrei Yurov, an EU education expert, who noted that “Russia hardly has any universities meeting all standards of fire protection.”

The EU funding, totaling €673,000 (US$976,000), was provided to lead a three-year project on electoral monitoring, and to teach students about the electoral process. Its program included a series of lectures and seminars for observers from various political parties. Participants were taught how to look for violations outside of polling stations, and to track such things as improper use of administrative resources during an election.

Authorities criticized the effort from its inception. Attacks on the University, which has provided post-graduate programs since 1994, surfaced from Russia’s Central Electoral Commission, and were put forth by delegates in the State Duma. In October 2007, President Vladimir Putin accused the University of acting as an agent of international interference in Russian affairs.

Grigory Golosov, who led the course, maintains that the program was educational and not partisan. “We did not pursue any political goals,” he said.

Under official pressure and concern for the University’s future, the electoral monitoring program was suspended on January 28th.

The watchdog arm of the OSCE and its Parliamentary Assembly would normally send two independent missions, but both divisions have decided to boycott the race.

“We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities,” said Ambassador Christian Strohal, director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE’s monitoring arm. “The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation.”

News of restrictions imposed on the monitoring body was playing out in recent weeks, and the decision came as no surprise to many. Russia had initially invited 70 ODIHR monitors to arrive on February 28th, just 3 days before the vote. The group had reiterated that this was not enough time for a complete mission, and had asked Moscow to move the date earlier, to February 15th. As recently as 2004, some 400 monitors from the ODIHR were present for the election, arriving weeks before the date to track candidate registration, campaigning, government use of resources, and media coverage.

The group pulled their most recent mission in December, 2007 due to visa delays.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, criticized the demands. “This is called an ultimatum. Self-respecting countries do not accept ultimatums,” Lavrov said.

Strohal countered Lavrov’s claims, saying that “an election is more than what happens on election day.”

“What is true for every election is also true for this one: transparency strengthens democracy; politics behind closed doors weakens it,” he added.

“This is not an argument over five days,” said Curtis Budden, the ODIHR acting spokesman.” The point is that Russia is not willing to provide the absolute minimal conditions necessary for effective observation.”

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA) also withdrew its mission after Russia invited just 30 of its monitors. The group had expected to send at least one representative of each of its 55 member parliaments, as has been customary in the past.