I’ll say a few words about Omsk too.
A brief recap of previous episodes: Varlamov, the sworn enemy of barbershops and an internet photographer, was invited by a local initiative group to take part in the Omsk mayoral election. The main driving force behind the idea was maxkatz, who also went on to head Varlamov’s campaign.
Primaries were announced, and Varlamov won them. The primaries were organized monstrously, terribly badly, but they were what they were. No one was forced to take part.
One of the primary participants (Vladislav Inozemtsev, who came in third) went ahead and entered the election anyway, saying he was "not sure Varlamov was really opposition," despite the fact that he had signed a special document committing himself to support the winner.
On May 2, Varlamov and Katz announced they were shutting down the campaign because of problems collecting signatures. To register as a candidate, they needed about 10,000 of them.
Here is Katz’s post about ending the campaign.
Here is Varlamov’s explanatory post.
Here is a post by Irek Murtazin that best expresses the complaints directed at Katz and Varlamov.
Why Varlamov and Katz should not be cursed out and beaten:
1. They’re funny long-haired guys.
They entered the election, and that was the right thing to do. In any case, they draw attention to political life, encourage people to get involved in politics, and bring new people into it.
Their main and indisputable achievement was holding primaries in Omsk for an "anti-establishment candidate." However pathetic they were, they still happened. The main candidates "not from the authorities" took part in them.
Fair primaries are everything. Only they can give us a chance to renew the opposition and, through real competition, identify leaders capable of defeating the Kremlin crooks in elections.
Here is an article M. Gaidar and I wrote for Vedomosti on this subject back in August 2008. Unfortunately, nothing came of it then, but now it is even more relevant.
In that sense, even though Varlamov dropped out of the race, Vladislav Inozemtsev’s behavior looks completely unacceptable. Public agreements must be sacred cows. Of course, you can slaughter one, but that’s where it ends for you.
The principles Katz proclaims—an honest and sincere approach to politics—are correct and quite appealing.
Why Varlamov and Katz should be cursed out—and better yet, beaten.
1. They’re funny long-haired guys.
This whole approach of "we don’t owe anyone anything, because we’re just having fun and running experiments; well, it didn’t work out, no big deal, we’ll try something else" is just as unacceptable as Inozemtsev’s behavior.
For the same reason: public obligations. Did you run in the primaries? You did. Did you seek support? You did.
Did you get it? Yes. It must have felt great watching everyone tear Inozemtsev apart, right?
Because that was the deal: we don’t support anyone else, but you, as the winners of the primaries, take on the responsibility of throwing all your effort into the campaign, including collecting signatures.
So from the moment they won the primaries, Varlamov and Katz really did owe us.
Whether you hire paid signature gatherers or rely on volunteers is your business. Those questions—including the financial ones—should have been thought through before the campaign started.
Collecting signatures is a special procedure invented by crooks in the Kremlin and the Central Election Commission to keep unwanted candidates off the ballot. Doing it properly is practically impossible. But we all knew that beforehand. You chose to play this game yourselves.
If you don’t want to play the game, then don’t run for mayor of Omsk—go to rallies for "Fair Elections" instead. That’s why we hold those rallies: so this whole absurd system will be scrapped, everyone who wants to run will be allowed to do so, and the restrictions will be reasonable.
The results of the Varlamov-Katz venture in Omsk are not just the creation of a group of wonderful, hardworking, decent activists in Omsk, but also extra arguments for every kind of pseudo-opposition crook who opposes primaries:
"We know all these trendy new gimmicks. We already saw them in Omsk. Better to do it the old-fashioned way: no internets, just choose our old comrades-in-arms at a party congress. Those are responsible leaders—they’ve been in opposition for 20 years, they won’t let us down."
Conclusion:
The procedures need to be improved.
There is a great deal of interest in primaries. Honest results will be supported and recognized by everyone.
We just need to approach it responsibly: publish platforms, hold full-fledged debates between participants, advertise it properly, and so on.
If there had been debates in Omsk, someone probably would have asked, "Varlamov, how exactly are you going to collect the signatures?" Quite possibly, after hearing the answer, a different candidate would have won.