Voting begins in Putin’s ‘special operation’ to stay in power until 2036

‘The vote is deliberately being held in the grey zone,’ says one opposition activist

An electoral official wearing protective gear in the city of Novosibirsk (Kirill Kukhmar/Tass)

Voting has begun across Russia on proposed constitutional reforms that would allow Vladimir Putin to rule until at least 2036.

The vote is being brought to Russians via impromptu polling booths on park benches, on buses, in the boots of cars, in theatres and factories, and even in “hot zones” of Covid-19 hospitals. Voting will continue for an unprecedented seven days, and every day will see a lottery draw, raffling anything from supermarket vouchers to cars and apartments.

Authorities insist that such creativity is a necessary response to the challenges posed in the era of the coronavirus. Opponents say the extraordinary measures to increase turnout demonstrate the unpopularity of Mr Putin’s decision to prioritise a power grab during a pandemic.

The vote, which was originally planned for 22 April before being rescheduled to this week, will ask Russians for a yes or no answer on over 200 new amendments to the country’s constitution.

The most important of these proposed changes – the resetting of presidential term limits – has been routinely under-emphasised in voting literature, and in one case was even omitted. Official messages have concentrated instead on populist measures such as cementing marriage as a union of man and woman, emphasising the role of God, and guaranteeing indexation of pensions and other social payments.

The vote is not a referendum per se; the amendments have, in fact, already been passed by both parliaments. Pro-democracy groups say that the unclear classification of the vote is no accident. In a referendum, both sides are officially allowed to agitate for and against, and are entitled to airtime and finance. Not so in this campaign.

“The vote was specially set up to avoid any debate,” says Grigory Melkonyants, co-chairman of the independent Golos election monitoring group. “The government can de facto agitate for a yes vote with their campaign literature, but activists campaigning for a no vote are being arrested as we speak.”

There have been several early reports of manipulations. Some of the claims related to age-old techniques: for example, evidence of forced voting at large enterprises, where vulnerable, low-paid workers are asked to vote under management supervision.

But there were examples of newer tricks too.

Earlier this month, a reporter at the liberal Dozhd television network exposed a fraudulent scheme that registered the details of pensioners on electronic voting websites, with the aim of then voting on their behalf. The reporter was summoned by state investigators for his trouble.

In the early hours of Thursday morning, another reporter for the same channel managed to vote twice — electronically and in person. That reporter would be fined 30,000 roubles (£350), election authorities confirmed.

The wide array of voting methods being employed during the week-long vote will make assessing its fairness difficult.

Not only is electronic voting possible in two cities – Moscow and Niznny Novgorod – but mobile voting at home and at work is being allowed without extenuating circumstances for the first time. There will be limited scope for independent oversight; monitors will only be permitted from regional divisions of the Public Chamber, a quasi-governmental organisation.

“The vote is deliberately being held in the grey zone,” says Mr Melkonyants. “Those who want to cheat have a huge number of options, and it will be impossible to catch them.”

Authorities at all levels, and across Russia’s 11 time zones, understand the importance of securing good numbers for the president.

Acceptable figures vary “according to the levels of cynicism” of individual actors, says Tatyana Stanovaya, director of political analysis firm RPolitik. For some, like Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, the target for yes votes is likely 70 per cent. For others, like Chechen president, Ramzan Kadyrov, the target will be nearer 100 per cent.

“Overall, there is a sense that any result below 65 per cent would be a bad result,” Ms Stanovaya suggests.

It seems a stretch to believe that the president would reach those figures in an entirely free election. A recent poll by the independent Levada Centre indicated that of those who were sure they would vote, 55 per cent would support the presidential amendments. But that figure drops below 50 per cent when it takes in all voters.

Another poll by the same organisation suggested that just 25 per cent of Russians would vote for the amendments if they had a chance to vote for alternatives.

Levada Centre is not the only polling organisation to register a haemorrhaging of support away from Russia’s president over recent years.

At the peak of his ratings, a year after the annexation of Crimea in June 2015, Mr Putin was supported by nine out of every 10 Russians. The same “closed” question elicits a positive answer from only 59 per cent today, and just 8 per cent of youngsters. In open polling, where respondents are asked to name the politicians they most trust for themselves – in what is considered most indicative of a free choice – Mr Putin was named by just 29 per cent of Russians.

Sociologists at Levada registered the biggest falls following Mr Putin’s decision to push through unpopular pension reforms in 2018.

Ms Stanovaya, however, traces the roots of an erosion of trust to 2017, when focus groups began to indicate growing disillusionment with the Kremlin’s focus on foreign campaigns in Syria and Ukraine.

“The new challenges of the pandemic, low oil prices, and the constitution are catalysts for a process of erosion that began much earlier,” she says.

Judging by the rush to get the vote done in the face of the pandemic, the fear among many in power would seem to be that the position is about to get even worse.

“This is essentially a special operation from Putin, and special operations are all about reducing risks and mobilising quickly,” says Ms Stanovaya.

“Waiting until the autumn would have meant inviting instability, the risk of a second coronavirus wave and social unrest that no one really knows how to deal with.”