In Russia, after an eight-year break, in 2012, the direct elections of the heads of regions were again legislatively resumed. In order to screen out a certain category of candidates, a municipal filter has been introduced. This means that each of the applicants must collect a predetermined number of signatures confirming the support of local governments in order to be admitted to the procedure. This state of affairs has caused heated discussions, disputes and verbal battles among politicians, many of whom consider the introduction of this provision an attempt to limit the possibilities of worthy contenders in the elections and erect a barrier between them and their voters.
History of Russian gubernatorial elections
Our state has received the status of an independent state since December 1991, from that historical moment turning into a separate state with its own legislative system. Since then, for more than ten years, the procedure for electing heads of regions has been carried out through popular voting. This continued until the period, which was launched in 2004. Then the existing order was drasticallychanged. Since then, for eight years, governors have not been elected, but appointed. Candidates for this position were nominated by the Legislative Assembly of the subjects. However, only the President of the Russian Federation had the right to make the final approval and appointment.
Return to elections
Dissatisfied with such upheavals in the political sphere turned out to be enough. Many parties and trends, as well as prominent figures, considered this a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But despite the protests, the procedure was valid until 2012. Then Dmitry Medvedev, whose term of presidency was coming to an end, had a hand in bringing back the existing order, but with some additions. He supported the proposal of D. Azarov, the mayor of Samara, to introduce a municipal filter, explaining this by a reasonable desire to identify the level of candidates even before the start of the election procedure for the heads of regions.
The essence of screening candidates
Dissatisfied and politicians who criticize the innovation, again it turned out to be enough. How did they motivate their protests? From their point of view, the introduction and existence of a municipal filter when choosing a governor is a kind of craftiness and a political game. The required number of notarized signatures with the support of deputies, most of which depend on the will of the authorities or are directly nominated by the United Russia party, in their opinion, in no way reflects the mood and opinion of the peoplemajority.
United Russia is unlikely to contribute to the success of candidates - representatives of other political parties. And this turns the election procedure into child's play, the result of which, of course, can be predicted in advance. The percentage of votes required for nomination is already quite high (ranging from 5 to 10%). In addition, signatures are collected in at least three-quarters of the municipalities, which, again, are controlled by representatives of the United Russia party.
The effect of the law in practice after 2012
The method of cleaning the lists of candidates from undesirable persons unsuitable for the posts of heads of regions due to inadequacy or political inconsistency, as it was supposed, turned into an endless and aimless, insurmountable bureaucratic red tape for many. How has the Municipal Filter Act been implemented since its adoption?
It turned out to be necessary to submit 110 signatures from the same number of municipal councils in order to be admitted as candidates for the post of mayor of Moscow. To the person incumbent at a certain moment in this post, such a task could not seem too difficult. After all, in order to implement what is prescribed by law, the mayor only needs to give appropriate instructions. He is also easily able to provide other conditions for his victory among non-dangerous competitors. Other candidates failed to overcome the municipal filter. The only exceptions were representatives of major political parties. Tofor example, the Communist Party.
International experience
As a reinforcement of their position on this issue, proponents of the provision put forward examples from international experience. The municipal filter on elections exists in many countries. France can serve as a weighty example in this matter among the developed civilized countries of Europe. However, in this state, the operation of laws is not so cruel and uncompromising towards candidates.
What's the difference? There, any specific municipal figure has the right to sign not for one, as in Russia, but for an arbitrarily large number of applicants. Further, the issue is decided only by the will of the people, but everyone has a chance. As a result, only completely unsuitable candidates are cut off from the proposed list. In our country, a certain person not only has the right to vote in the nomination of only a single applicant, but also only one deputy from the relevant municipal council can sign for the applicant.
Appeal to the Constitutional Court
The objections of the opposition from among the parties in the Duma and the passion for the municipal filter turned out to be so serious that the Constitutional Court took up the decision on this issue. The initiative for this came from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as well as the Just Russia party. They asked to check this provision to identify possible inconsistencies with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In addition to the need for prospective applicants to be recognized as candidates for the posts of heads of regions, enlist the support of a certainpercentage of deputies and municipalities, the opposition was also concerned about other issues. For example, the right to consultations of the president with self-nominated candidates and political parties who propose their representatives to these positions. Such a request to the Constitutional Court was considered by the authors of the request as gross interference in internal relations in certain parties and private affairs of persons from among the contenders.
COP Decision
The Constitutional Court considered these complaints inappropriate, and the established norms are fully consistent with the fundamental law of the state, that is, it confirmed the legitimacy of the municipal filter in the election of the head of the subject of the Russian Federation. As stated, such a decision was made in order to maintain political stability. This opinion was expressed by political scientist A. Kynev in an interview with media representatives. At the same time, supporters of this provision considered that the municipal filter helps to overcome potential conflicts in politics and contributes to the manifestation of he althy competition in this area of public life.
Elections or profanation?
However, other experts did not support this opinion. Many of them say even now that this state of affairs cannot give rise to anything but political squabbles and conflicts, administrative pressure and buying signatures. In their opinion, it is obvious that the municipal filter in the 2017 gubernatorial elections turned out to be much easier to overcome for United Russia contenders. In addition, such an artificial barrier prevents the emergence of new promising faces in the politicalarena and, in fact, does not solve any of the existing problems.
Political scientists are of the opinion that regardless of the decision taken once by the Constitutional Court, in the near future the state of political affairs and legislation in this area will change, and the system proposed and adopted once will be improved.
What dramatic changes are foreseen
In June 2017, fierce disputes flared up in the political arena of Russia. The well-known politician Sergei Kiriyenko, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, spoke in favor of abolishing the municipal filter. The ForGO and ISEPI reports suggest its serious renovation: exemption from the signature collection procedure for a number of parties, reduction of the required percentage of votes for applicants to pass, and some other changes. Voices are also being raised against the abolition of the existing situation. To date, opinions have also been expressed about the positive effect of the municipal filter as a way to cut off applicants with a criminal record, fake candidates and obvious populists.
Politicians who advocate the abolition of the municipal filter also express views on a return to the system that existed before 2012, that is, the resumption of appointments of governors by the president. A number of prominent members of the "Great Fatherland Party" can serve as an example of this. They believe that by choosing the head of state, they have already endowed him with certain powers that he has the right to use. Such a distribution, in their opinion, significantly simplifies the system of appointments, as well as removals frompositions of persons who do not cope with their duties. And this is effective from a political and practical point of view.
