Since Monday, signatures have been collected under a letter from election commission members as part of the “election commission strike” proposed by Leonid Volkov here. The letter was launched by election commission members themselves, and our Moscow headquarters is helping them verify the signatures submitted through the form. There are already more than 500 signatures, and more than 320 of them have now been verified and published. In other words, these are real, active election commission members, both at the precinct and territorial levels; there are even commission chairs among them. The geography spans all of Russia.
The idea is very simple: Russia’s electoral system is run by roughly 900,000 election commission members. Not all of them support Putin or the constitutional amendments, not all of them are thrilled by the idea of spending an entire week—rather than the usual single day—working at a polling station in full protective gear for next to nothing, and certainly not all of them dream of catching coronavirus, infecting voters, and bringing the disease home to their families. In this five-minute video, Volkov clearly explains why that is exactly what will happen if this vote is conducted “the Pamfilova way” (a reference to Ella Pamfilova, head of Russia’s Central Election Commission).
And what do workers do when an employer forces them to work under unacceptable conditions, at risk to their health, and without decent pay? That’s right: they strike. It is a civilized and proper way to defend their rights, and it deserves full support.
We support strikes in general, and this one in particular—because the election commission members’ demands, which concern the protection of their labor rights, align very closely with our own political demands.
We ourselves demand:
— stop this madness: do not hold the vote at the height of the epidemic, and postpone it for several months;
— hold it under proper referendum rules, with the ability to campaign both “for” and “against,” a 50% turnout threshold, and the possibility of independent monitoring;
— hold it in a single day, without all this unlimited “at-home,” “early,” and “electronic” voting that makes any public oversight impossible and meaningless.
Under those conditions, this vote could be recognized as legitimate. We would take part in it, campaign against the amendments, and—there is no doubt about it—defeat Putin decisively.
As is easy to see, the demands put forward by election commission workers and our own demands ultimately amount to the same thing. So of course we support their strike in every possible way.
Besides, this is not quite a standard employer-employee relationship. Each precinct election commission (PEC) is a collegial body that operates under a specific strict set of rules. PEC members are not hired employees. Although they are most often schoolteachers, formally they are representatives of various parties and public organizations within the electoral system.
A PEC member cannot simply be fired; they hold their authority for a fixed term. A PEC makes all its decisions by vote. If there is no quorum, then the PEC has no legal authority at all. It simply cannot open the polling station and begin work. Nor can it sign the final protocol. If a majority of PEC members refuse to show up, there simply will be no vote. Now, let’s say the signatures of striking PEC members on the final protocols could even be forged (though first, that would be a crime, and second, it would become known immediately)—but who, then, is actually going to do the work? Who is going to spend a week carrying ballot boxes from apartment to apartment and standing duty at polling stations? All of this gives the election commission strike additional power—provided, of course, that it becomes large enough. Then Pamfilova and Putin will have no choice but to postpone the vote—that is, to meet our political demand as well.
The 500-plus election commission members who have declared their participation in the strike and publicly signed the letter are real heroes and deserve enormous credit. But of course that is not enough for success. We need to reach many more PEC members. It is not even necessary for them to sign the letter. Of course they may be afraid. It is enough that they know about the strike. That they read the letter. That they understand the risks they are taking by agreeing to spend a week working as part of a PEC in the current epidemiological situation. And that they are prepared to support it.
They do not actually have to do anything for this. No need to write letters or sign statements. All they have to do is simply not go to the polling station on the morning of June 25, when voting begins. In the end, they can just pick up the phone and send the commission chair a WhatsApp message: “Maria Ivanovna, you know, I’m not feeling well, I’ve got a cough.” They risk nothing by doing this; there are no sanctions for it. (For example, Ekaterina Shulman explains this in detail here.
Right now, of course, everyone who signed the letter is being called and pressured. They are being urged to “leave the commissions.” What needs to be understood here is that they are calling and applying pressure precisely because they cannot actually do anything. A PEC member cannot be removed except through a court, for “systematic failure to perform duties.” But failing to show up for this constitutional vote—which is not provided for under election law—does not count as a “failure to perform duties.” And even if it were mandatory, a commission member could fall ill, be unable to get time off work, or have any number of other valid reasons not to take part in organizing the vote. That is why they are now trying to persuade all undesirable PEC members to “leave the commissions”—to leave voluntarily, because they cannot be removed. If they could remove them, they already would have. Of course, they must not leave under any circumstances: there will be real elections again, and independent PEC members will play a huge role in them.
I want to suggest one simple thing to everyone. And if you spend even half as much time on it as people spend arguing online about whether to boycott the vote or take part in it, the effect could be enormous. Go to the website of Russia’s Central Election Commission. Find the region where you lived when you were in school—or where you live now, if you have school-age children. Go to the “Information on the composition of territorial and precinct election commissions” section. Find the precinct commission for your school’s address, or your children’s school. Most likely, that commission is based in the school. Most likely, it is made up mainly of teachers. Most likely, some of them are people you know—those who once taught you, or those who now teach your children. It is entirely possible that you have some way of contacting them. Write to them. Show them the letter. Say: “Dear Tatyana Petrovna, I’m worried about your health and want to tell you that you can legally refuse to take part in this vote, without consequences for yourself, if you are also concerned.” Talk to them and explain. The result could be astonishing.
The vote on the amendments is unlawful, meaningless, and dangerous to your health—and to the health of your loved ones. You can refuse to take part—and that would be the right and honest civic choice, responsible behavior from an epidemiological standpoint, and a courageous political decision.