Skip to main content

The devil in the detail of the Russian election shows Putin LOST

Now that we can see the final regional breakdown in the Russian election results, it is much worse for Putin that it initially seemed. The 49% vote for United Russia includes the tallies for non Russian republics, such as Chechnya, where the 99.9% support for United Russia is clearly false.


Given that several districts in Moscow and St. Petersburg returned tallies of less than 25% for United Russia, then it seems like a reasonable working assumption that the majority of Russians in European Russia voted substantially against Putin.


When we consider that the election was not certified free and fair, amid widespread intimidation and pressure on independent observers, it seems more likely than not that Putin actually lost this election. 


This creates a crisis of legitimacy.


Far from serving another two terms as President, it could actually be that this clearly fraudulent and stolen election marks the beginning of the end of the Putin era, even if not for the Kleptocracy that he has created and presided over. 


This is totally unexpected. The belief was that Putin has sufficient popularity that he would be able to hold power more or less legitimately. It now seems quite clear that he needed the fraudulent votes in order to maintain a majority: without them he would have lost the election.


The press reaction is that he has "suffered a setback": it is much worse than that: he actually lost the election.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...