In Russia, after an eight-year hiatus, in 2012, the direct elections of regional leaders were resumed by law. At the same time, a municipal filter was introduced to drop out a certain category of candidates. This means that each applicant must collect a predetermined number of signatures for admission to the procedure, confirming the support of local authorities. This state of affairs caused fierce debate, debate and verbal battles among politicians, many of whom consider the introduction of this provision to be an attempt to limit the possibilities of worthy candidates in the elections and to erect a barrier between them and their voters.
The history of the governorship elections
Our power has received independent status since December 1991, from this historical moment it has turned into a separate state with its own legislative system. Since then, for more than ten years, the procedure for the election of regional heads has been carried out by popular vote. This continued until the period that was launched in 2004. Then the existing order was radically changed. 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, the final approval and appointment had the right to do only directly the President of the Russian Federation.
Return to the election
Dissatisfied with such perturbations in the political sphere was enough. Many parties and movements, as well as prominent figures, have 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 ending, had a hand in order to restore the existing order, but with some additions. He supported the proposal of D. Azarov, the mayor of Samara, on the introduction of a municipal filter, explaining this by a reasonable desire to identify the level of candidates even before the start of the election process for the heads of regions.
The essence of the screening of 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 guile 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 put forward by the United Russia party, in their opinion, in no way reflects the attitude and opinion of the popular majority.
United Russia is unlikely to contribute to the success of candidates - representatives of other political parties. And this turns the election procedure into children's fun, the result of which, of course, can be predicted in advance. The percentage of votes necessary for the 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 insolvency, as was supposed, actually turned out to be an endless and aimless, irresistible bureaucratic red tape for many. How was the municipal filter law implemented in practice over the period since its adoption?
To be included in the candidates for the post of mayor of Moscow, it turned out to be necessary to submit 110 signatures from the same number of municipal councils. To a person acting at a certain moment in this post, such a task could not seem too complicated. Indeed, for the implementation of the law prescribed by the law, the mayor just 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 exception was representatives of large political parties. For example, the Communist Party.
international experience
In support of their position on this issue, proponents of the situation put forward examples from international experience. Municipal election filter exists in many countries. A powerful example in this matter from the developed civilized countries of Europe is France. However, in the said state, the application of laws is not so cruel and uncompromising to candidates.
What are the differences? There, any particular 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 nominating only a single applicant, but also only one deputy can sign up for the applicant from the corresponding municipal council.
Appeal to the Constitutional Court
The opposition from 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 matter. The initiative came from the Communist Party, as well as the party "Fair Russia". They asked to check this provision in order to identify possible inconsistencies with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In addition to the need for prospective candidates to be recognized as candidates for the posts of heads of regions, to enlist the support of a certain percentage of deputies and municipalities, the opposition was also worried about other issues. For example, the right to consult the president with self-nominees and political parties offering their representatives to these positions. A similar request by the authors of the Constitutional Court was seen as a gross interference in internal relations in certain parties and the private affairs of individuals from among the applicants.
COP decision
The Constitutional Court considered these complaints inappropriate, and the established norms fully comply with the basic law of the state, that is, it confirmed the legitimacy of the municipal filter in the election of the head of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. As stated, a similar decision was made in order to maintain political stability. This opinion was expressed by political analyst 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 healthy competition in this area of public life.
Elections or profanity?
However, other experts did not support this view. Many of them are now declaring that this state of affairs cannot give rise to anything other than political squabbles and conflicts, administrative pressure and buying signatures. In their opinion, it is obvious that the municipal filter in the election of the governor of 2017 proved to be much easier to overcome for candidates from United Russia. Moreover, such an artificial barrier impedes the emergence of promising new faces in the political arena and, in fact , does not solve any of the existing problems.
Political scientists are of the opinion that regardless of the decision made by the COP once, 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 cardinal changes are expected
In June 2017, fierce disputes erupted in the political arena of Russia . The well-known politician Sergey Kiriyenko, the chairman of the government of the Russian Federation , called for the abolition of the municipal filter. The reports of the FORGO and ISEPI suggest its serious renovation: exemption from the procedure for collecting signatures for a number of parties, reduction of the required percentage of votes for the passage of applicants and some other changes. Voices are raised against the abolition of the existing situation. Today, opinions are also being expressed about the positive effect of the municipal filter as a way of cutting off applicants with a criminal past, fake candidates and overt populists.
Politicians who advocate the abolition of the municipal filter also express opinions on a return to the system that existed before 2012, that is, on the resumption of the appointment of governors by the president. An example of this is the number of prominent members of the " Great Fatherland Party " . They believe that, having chosen the head of state, they have already endowed him with certain powers, which he has the right to use. Such a distribution, in their opinion, greatly simplifies the system of appointments, as well as dismissals of persons who do not cope with their duties. And this is effective from a political and practical point of view.