The Morning Briefing episode from November 29, 2018: Alexei Navalny’s launch of “Smart Voting”

Indeed, Alexei Navalny yesterday came out with a programmatic statement in which he announced a strategy for the upcoming elections at various levels. I will very briefly explain its essence: it is to achieve the defeat of United Russia through coordinated voting for some one candidate, regardless, really, of which party he belongs to, what ideology he has, or indeed whether he has any at all. What matters is that some one candidate is selected. He is determined by various methods, and then this kind of coordinated protest voting begins for him. In short, I would call it this: in any region, in any election, you look for your own Ishchenko. We are looking for Ishchenko. By analogy with what happened in the Far East. We have several questions for Alexei Navalny about this strategy. And first we want to listen to him. He is on the phone line with us. Alexei, good morning!

Good morning!

Explain, this is very similar to the strategy that was used, it seems, in 2014 in the Duma elections back then.

Yes, any other party.

Yes, any other party, only now it is not just any other one that is chosen, the votes are not scattered among all of them, but one is chosen. So many people ask the question: where is the guarantee, really, that in the end you won’t choose someone even worse than a United Russia candidate? Because we know that people voted, conditionally speaking, for A Just Russia, and there there were... well, who was there? — not even mentioning Mironov...

No-no, the main thing is that afterward all those people they had voted for were expelled from A Just Russia.

Yes, all those who gave hope were expelled, while all sorts of ghouls remained. Where are the guarantees against that?

An excellent question. First, in such a situation no one can give any guarantees. Second, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is, of course, generally similar to the 2011 strategy “Vote for any party against United Russia,” but the most important difference is that there we voted specifically by party list. You voted for a party. The concept we are proposing now concerns voting specifically for people. Because after those elections these party lists, especially in the regions, were mostly removed by the authorities, because they are afraid of this concept of ours. What we propose, the so-called “smart voting,” in which, when politicians cannot come to an agreement, all of us come to an agreement, find candidate number two and vote for him, is aimed at solving the monopoly of United Russia. That is, the idea is to fight the monopoly of United Russia. Can we, in the course of this struggle, end up with someone definitely no better than a United Russia candidate? A. Navalny: For the most part, the candidates we will be voting for are bad. Good ones are not allowed onto the ballot now. I absolutely agree that for the most part the candidates we will be voting for are bad. Good candidates are not allowed onto the ballot now. And in this sense it is completely obvious, and moreover, by countering this campaign of ours the authorities will force the communists, for example, to nominate some absolutely vile characters who will literally campaign with portraits of Stalin. And so I propose abstracting from that altogether and setting ourselves specifically the task of fighting the monopoly of United Russia, because that is the worst thing of all. Any vile candidate from another party is still better than a United Russia candidate.

So we should pose the question this way: which is preferable for us, a portrait of Stalin or a candidate from United Russia? Right?

No, we should ask ourselves the question that we are not going to look at any portraits at all; the main thing for us is the destruction of the monopoly of United Russia. All the other parties will improve, and someday we will achieve a situation in which normal candidates are allowed onto the ballot only after the destruction of the monopoly of United Russia. Therefore we really do not care what portraits everyone else has.

Oleg, please tell us, what can somehow prevent a person from switching to United Russia? Because such cases have happened. You can be anyone you like. You get a position, and then suddenly — boom! — “Shouldn’t I join United Russia?”

Not to mention that you may not formally be there, but in practice work as if you were a United Russia member.

Another excellent question. The main thing that can prevent this is if United Russia has more votes than them. That is, right now, if you are from A Just Russia, from the communists, from the LDPR, it is advantageous for you to defect to United Russia, because they always have the majority on their side and they control 90% of the seats. When NRZB, systemic, cowardly, disgusting, vile, venal, feels that it is stronger, when they will have not 5% of deputies or 8% of deputies, but at least 20% or, all the more so, 60%, as may happen in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they will, of course, become different. They will become, of course, stronger, bolder, and braver.

One more question. I hope you’ll also think it’s a good one. The phrase “we’ll have to come to an agreement” was heard here, and that phrase makes me smile skeptically. With whom are you going to come to an agreement, whom exactly are you going to call on to follow such a strategy?

A. Navalny: Any vile candidate from another party is still better than a United Russia candidate.

This, Tanya, is an excellent question, the best one, because everything is built on it. Because what we observe — and not only observe, but participate in — is the party system and elections under Putin for 18 years, and we can clearly see that parties and politicians, for objective reasons — we won’t even analyze them now — cannot come to agreements; they will be forbidden to come to agreements. Therefore I will come to an agreement with you, with Sasha Plyushchev, with the listeners of Echo of Moscow; I realized that it is easier for me to come to an agreement with you than with politicians and party leaders.

With us, with Tanya, you can only come to an agreement that you’ll go on the air live. I can guarantee you that.

No, about what comes next — with Venediktov, please.

With Venediktov it is still easier. It will not be a simple process — reaching an agreement with Venediktov, I suppose — but nevertheless I know for sure that even that is much easier than trying to persuade the communists, Yabloko members, and A Just Russia to divide, for example, electoral districts in Moscow. That will never happen. I’m not even going to deal with that. Therefore I will agree with you that, guys, in this district let’s all vote together for this one, and in another one for that sort of person.

Alexei, one last question...

I hope it will be a good one.

In general, isn’t this a kind of dissipation of energy? Because, first: a) you are playing the proposed game anyway, it is still the same elections from among the proposed candidates; b) it somehow draws people away, perhaps, from protest, from street activity; some say that more YouTube channels should be created on the internet instead of dealing with your political affairs and so on. Is it necessary to play this game?

Yes, more YouTube channels should be created. You see, there is no universal effective super-strategy. If there were one, and I were diverting resources from it, well, then perhaps one could argue with that. There are many strategies. We deal with elections anyway. This is not the main direction of our activity. We will make YouTube channels too, and organize rallies, and investigations mainly.

A. Navalny: The main thing for us is the destruction of the monopoly of United Russia. But elections in the country take place once a year. In fact, all of us — an ordinary person — will need to spend, well, two days a year on this. One time to come directly to the election and one time to do a little campaigning and see which candidate you need to choose. This is not some enormous effort for the broad public. For us it is a lot of effort; for the broad public, no. Therefore, within the framework of an electoral strategy, which we will have to engage in anyway, this is simply the most effective path.

Sorry, one more question came to mind: doesn’t this suggest that you want to create conflict situations, when people... well, they will vote for yet another ishchenko (with a lowercase letter) — and then they will try to steal this victory from them or remove the candidate, and accordingly, in this way, you are stirring up people’s indignation. Is that the strategy?

In any case, this strategy is aimed at creating stress for the authorities. But we understand... you are formulating it absolutely correctly: when we have found an ishchenko (with a lowercase letter), voted for him, he got 60%, and then they — bang! — removed him from the election. What is happening now in Primorye: people are outraged, tension is rising. But that is political struggle, unquestionably. We need this strategy in order to force the Kremlin to retreat. And it will try in every possible way to deceive us and fight us. That is, this is a strategy of struggle. Struggle is always conflict. Otherwise we will never budge United Russia.

Questions just keep pouring out of me. Do you allow for the possibility that such a candidate could be Ksenia Sobchak?

No, I do not. Such a candidate — where?

Somewhere Sobchak is nominated, and you propose voting for her. Do you allow, in general, theoretically, such a situation?

Look, this strategy, in general, has become possible precisely now mainly thanks to two factors. First: a very sharp decline in turnout. And now we need to bring in far fewer people for this consolidated voting in order to win. And second: specifically the increase in the retirement age, which has led to the fact that among those groups of people whom the authorities always drag to the polls — pensioners, state employees — a kind of “fifth column” has formed: they will be dragged to the polls, but they will still vote against pro-Putin candidates. Therefore the key thing for each candidate is that he consistently speak out against raising the retirement age...

Wait a second, sorry. Yesterday I read from you: “We are looking for the most viable candidate.” It turned out that all of them there are God knows who, nobody knows them. And there, say, the election for governor of St. Petersburg: Beglov, Sobchak, and bit players. Can you call on people to vote for Sobchak or not?

A. Navalny: In any case, this strategy is aimed at creating stress for the authorities.

I can call on people to vote for anyone at all. But I assure you that under any alignment, under any sociology — and we conduct this sociology, and specifically on Sobchak, specifically in St. Petersburg we conduct it — we see that nothing will come of it. Well, listen, as I already said, basically we orient ourselves toward the results of previous elections. The results of the latest nationwide elections show that in Moscow, for example, Sobchak received fewer votes than the communist, fewer than Zhirinovsky, which was the first time in the last 20 years. Therefore, of course, this is a candidate nobody needs, nobody will support her.

Thank you very much! Alexei Navalny explaining his strategy of “Smart Elections”