By the way, ACF staff (the Anti-Corruption Foundation) challenged me to a debate when we, the leaders of the Democratic Coalition (the Progress Party, the December 5 Party, PARNAS, the Libertarian Party, and Democratic Choice), agreed to the condition set by PARNAS’s political council: the election list, without primaries or competition, should be headed by their leader, Mikhail Kasyanov.
We have this format of internal debates, and I got hammered there for abandoning—even partially—the principle that “personnel decisions should be made only through a general vote.” I pushed back just as hard, arguing that it was better to accept this but preserve the coalition. Better a compromise than disunity. I argued that our supporters would understand everything and accept a list with a privileged first spot.
Then we read posts (here’s a typical one), worried, and thought things would improve. We told ourselves we would make up for it with primaries for the rest of the list and with good work. That was in December, January, and February.
By early March, it had become completely clear that the coalition had made a major political mistake. Our supporters and voters are simply not interested in primaries that do not decide the question of the top spot. No one can be fooled here: it is obvious that the number-one position is the most important thing in an election campaign, and we ran into a total lack of interest in the Democratic Coalition’s primaries. Voters were not registering (even now there are no more than 8,000 of them), and no one is watching the debates—the latest one had literally 25 viewers online.
There was also a technical problem—PARNAS took responsibility for the primaries website and the registration process, but failed completely. Still, that is a secondary issue. People will find a way to register if they really want to.
Anyone can make a mistake; what matters is acknowledging it and correcting it. We need to sit down at the table and figure out how to fix things, not pretend that nothing is happening.
I have seen many people writing, “agreements are agreements, you can’t break them,” and Mikhail Mikhailovich Kasyanov himself keeps repeating this endlessly.
And I’ll put it this way: are we going into this election to honor certain agreements, or to win? Is it more important for us to pay respect to Mikhail Mikhailovich Kasyanov, or to consolidate democratically minded voters? Politics is a living process, and an election race is called a “race” precisely because everything changes quickly.
At about the same time that we had our agreement to give Kasyanov the top spot without primaries, Republicans in the United States had plenty of understandings that Jeb Bush would be their main candidate. A few months passed—and where is Jeb Bush now? He is probably a good man, and people probably wanted to show him respect too, but elections are about what benefits voters, not about dancing attendance on a party leader.
When the Democratic Coalition was created, there were two main, ironclad agreements: the lists would be built on the basis of PARNAS and would be formed only through primaries.
Those are the agreements that cannot be abandoned; everything else the coalition can and should decide based on the political situation.
And those are exactly the agreements we violated by granting M.M. Kasyanov special treatment. That is why we got ignored by voters.
I think very highly of Mikhail Mikhailovich. Judging by his professional qualities, he would make an excellent deputy and parliamentary faction leader, but we must act in the interests of our supporters, who have voted with their feet.
In the end, four of the coalition’s five members said they believed it was necessary to return to the original plan: primaries for the entire list, with no exemptions or privileges.
PARNAS blocked the decision—we do not vote; everything is decided by consensus.
Everyone took a couple of weeks for consultations. In the end, the December 5 Party proposed a compromise solution: resolve the dispute not within the coalition, but by a vote of the voters—those who had already registered for the primaries.
Yesterday, the Coalition Council put four questions on the table, one after another:
Accept the December 5 Party’s proposal. 4 in favor, 1 against. The decision did not pass because of PARNAS’s veto.
Accept my proposal for primaries covering the entire list, with no exceptions. 4 in favor, 1 against. The decision did not pass.
Finally put an end to the ambiguity over how many spots can be allocated without primaries. 4 participants stated that our agreements provide for only one exemption. PARNAS argued for three spots without primaries, which raised the temperature a bit.
In connection with the somehow emerging and rather unclear situation over single-member districts, particularly in Moscow’s Central Administrative District, decide that a candidate can be nominated unopposed only by coalition consensus, not by a PARNAS decision. If there is a dispute, then it must be resolved only through primaries. 4 in favor, 1 against. Blocked by PARNAS.
In this situation, we—the Progress Party—are doing what we must. We continue to regard PARNAS as our political ally, but declare that we will not take part in the PARNAS party list. We can no longer tell our supporters, “you decide everything here—through primaries,” because that is no longer true.
I reproduce the Progress Party’s statement in full below, and I also want to add this:
The endless shielding of party leaders from voters’ opinions has done more to crush Russia’s democratic opposition than any Putin ever could.
Voters and supporters should impose their will on parties, not the other way around. A party should sit down and think: who should we put in the top spot to win more votes?
But here, the party is thinking: how do we grab the top spot for our irreplaceable leader and explain it by saying everyone has to unite and there is no alternative?
So here we are at a crossroads. On one side, we are told: join the united democrats, just sign that you support Grigory Alexeyevich (Grigory Yavlinsky) in the 2018 election. On the other: join the united democrats, but sign that Mikhail Mikhailovich gets the top spot.
You can sign, and you can support them—especially since Grigory Alexeyevich and Mikhail Mikhailovich are great guys. I mean that without irony; I would like to see them in the State Duma.
But why these conditions all of a sudden, and who needs them? Are voters demanding this?
Well then, let me also go around with a piece of paper demanding: sign that you support me in the 2024 election. I worked, I suffered, I earned it, I was the coolest guy in 2013.
And you would quite rightly say to me: Alexei, being the cool guy in 2013 and being the cool guy in 2024 are two very different things. Come back when it matters, take part in the debates, win the primaries, beat the other cool guys—then we’ll sign.
Right now, we understand your interest, but there is nothing in it for us.
I agree with that approach and accept it. We must act in the interests of voters, and that is what I urge everyone to do.