A.Raskin, PhD.,
Faculty of Journalism,
MoscowStateUniversity
“Media coverage of new governor selection process during Putin’s second presidential term: political communication technologies of the post-soviet transition period”
Soon after the victory in presidential elections in March, 2004 Putin introduced new political reforms. As experts and think tank society in Russia concluded: “Nearly all of the reforms initiated by the Kremlin since the presidential election – from the budget to replacing benefits with cash payments – are aimed in large part against the governors”. The role of governors in the political consequence decreased.
During the 90th they were the members of the Upper House of the Russian Parliament but then became just regional top managers. Besides this governors started to be treated by prosecutors like happened before with oligarchs.
After Beslan tragedy, on the 13th of September, 2004, Putin announced a sweeping political shake up that did away with popularly elected regional leaders.
The president received the authority to nominate regional leaders and nominees have to be confirmed by popularly elected legislative assemblies in all Russian nowadays 88 regions.
The major change is transition from direct to indirect election model which centralised the political power. People lost one Constitution right which is the right to form their own local government. It was officially proclaimed that new system of governors selection would help to fight with all possible terrorist but in fact the main reason was to accomplish unpopular social reform.
It was clear that many direct elected governors opposed the controversial Kremlin bill which replaced benefits for socially vulnerable groups with cash payments. The population which elected governors before wanted them to be against the bill. And appointed not elected governors can ignore popular protests. But at the same time Putin became the hostage of inner cycles, not public.
The reaction to the proposed bills from the former Russian president Boris Yeltsin was the following: “I have promised myself not to comment about what the current president does. I can tell him personally what I like and don’t like”.
The former Soviet president Michael Gorbachev had tried to criticise Putin but his voice couldn’t influence the situation and stop the process: “Our common goal is to do everything possible to make sure that the bill, which in essence mean a step back from democracy, don’t come into force as law”.
In the interview given to three all-national TV channels (“Pervii”, RTR, NTV) Putin himself made some comments about the proposed bill: “These proposals are totally unconnected with any attempt by the head of the state to obtain some kind of additional power over regional authorities”.
The political reform in 2004 may be described as a communication breakdown and return to the path towards the elements of “Soviet future”. A proposed bill quite easy had passed both Houses of the Russian Parliament. For instance, the State Duma (lower House), controlled by the pro-Kremlin largest political party “The United Russia”, voted for it by 358 against 62 voices. In December 2004 the bill became the law. And started from January 2005 all governors had to take new procedure.
Putin is still strong because of high approval his job as the president rating. Experts on public opinion say that many people feel his firm hand is necessary to pressure public security and natural unity from the twin threats of terrorists and secessionism. Besides theses factors economy is also doing well under high oil and gas prices.
During the whole last year the president and the federal government tried to maintain the crucial social reform. In some regions the protest rallies took place but the media couldn’t cover them effectively.
Konstantin Pulikovsky, the former special envoy to one of seven “super Russian region” (Far Eastern) in reply to local journalists request to name them the list of potential nominees to the governor post in Jewish Autonomous District just said: “Why should you know them?”
In fact rumours coverage became the central tendency. Alongside with coverage of rumours media was involved in heavy lobbying process coverage and had to pay attention to minor factors. (example in Saratov region where a nominee was changed from morning to evening, Ipatov vs. Volodin). The same situation happened in Kaliningrad region (the most western Russian territory) last August when the local media tried to cover a nomination process of the next governor.
Instead of public control of the governor activity in a region the Kremlin Administration introduced a special computer program which would figure out all governor’s records and finally mark their effectiveness. In this case the most important trend for a governor is to be a good manager instead a good politician. And this included in a new concept of the future country development as a united incorporation. But a system in which everything is bound to a simple person, the president, is potentially extremely unstable.
Stages of governors’ selection process:
- 1991-1993 – first direct elections for 21 regions including Moscow and St. Petersburg
- 1993-1995 – direct nomination by the president without confirmation of local legislators
- 1995-1999 – second direct elections, 88 from 89 regions, Yeltsin second term
- 2000-2004 – direct elections under strong control from the presidential administration, Putin’s first term
- 2005-current period – indirect elections, the president nominates and local legislators vote to confirm nominees
Public attitude towards reform according to polls research:
September 2004 % / September 2005 %Completely agree / 16 / 24
Partly agree / 22 / 25
Partly disagree / 29 / 27
Completely agree / 19 / 12
Undecided / 14 / 22
Main consequences of the governors’ selection reform:
- Limitation of people’s right to form their own local governments
- High centralization of political power
- Construction of one-party political model
- Changing of federal model on a unitary state system
- Transforming Russia into energy supply incorporation
- Violation of basic human rights and decrease of social support and guaranties
- Creation opportunities for local “barons” (long term governors) to continue their presence in power
- Excluding media from local election coverage
- Coverage rumors vs. facts and elections data
- Inability to develop democratic principles
Table 1: Governors, elected during Putin’s first term, 2000-2004
# / Region / Governor / Period of election1 / Adygeya, Republic of / SovmenH / before March, 2004
2 / Arkhangelsk Region / KiselevN. / March, 2004
3 / Astrakhan Region / Zhilkin A / December, 2004
4 / Bashkortostan, Republic of / Rachimov M. / before March, 2004
5 / Belgorod Region / Savchenko E. / before March, 2004
5 / Bryansk Region / Denin N. / December, 2004
7 / Buryatiya, Republic of / Potapov L. / before March, 2004
8 / Chechen Republic / Alkhanov A. / August, 2004
9 / Chita Region / Ganiatullin R. / March, 2004
10 / Kamchatka Region / Mashkovtsev M. / December, 2004
11 / Karachaevo-Cherkes Republic / Batdyev M. / before March, 2004
12 / Kareliya, Republic of / Katanandov S. / before March, 2004
13 / Khabarovsk Krai / Ishaev V. / December, 2004
14 / Khakasiya, Republic of / Lebed A / December, 2004
15 / Kirov Region / Shaklein N. / before March, 2004
16 / Komi-Permyak District / Saveljev G. / Before March, 2004
17 / Krasnodar Krai / Tkachev A. / March, 2004
18 / Krasnoyarsk Krai / Khloponin A. / Before March, 2004
19 / Kurgan Region / Bogomolov O. / November, 2004
20 / Leningrad Region / Serdyukov V. / before March, 2004
21 / Magadan Region / Dudov N. / before March, 2004
22 / Marii-El, Republic of / Markelov L. / December, 2004
23 / Moscow City / Luzhkov Y. / before March, 2004
24 / Moscow Region / Gromov B. / before March, 2004
25 / Murmansk Region / Evdokimov Y. / March, 2004
26 / Nenets Autonomous District / Barinov A. / February, 2005
27 / Novgorod Region / Prusak M. / before March, 2004
28 / Novosibirsk Region / Tolokonsky V / before March, 2004
29 / Omsk Region / Polezaev L. / before March, 2004
30 / Pskov Region / Kuznetsov M. / December, 2004
31 / Ryazan Region / Shpak G. / March, 2004
32 / Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) / Shtyrov V. / before March, 2004
33 / Sakhalin Region / Malakhov I. / before March, 2004
34 / St. Petersburg City / Matvienko V. / before March, 2004
35 / Taimyr Autonomous District / Budargin O. / before March, 2004
36 / Tomsk Region / Kress V. / before March, 2004
37 / Tver Region / Zelenin D. / before March, 2004
38 / Tyva, Republic of, / Oorzhak S. / before March, 2004
39 / Udmurtiya, Republic of / Volkov A. / March, 2004
40 / Ulyanovsk Region / Morozov S. / December, 2004
41 / Ust-Orda Buryat District / Maleev V. / November, 2004
42 / Volgograd Region / Maksyuta N. / December, 2004
43 / Vologda Region / Pozgalev V. / before March, 2004
44 / Voronezh Region / Kulakov V. / March, 2004
45 / Yaroslavl Region / Lisitsyn A. / before March, 2004
Table 2: First-term governors have been nominated by the president and confirmed by legislative assemblies, 2005
# / Region / Governor / Date of Confirmation / % of vote1 / Altai Krai / Karlin A. / 25.08.2005 / 93,44 %
2 / Dagestan, Republic of / Aliev M / 16.02. 2006 / 100 %
3 / Gorno-Altai Republic / Berdnikov A. / 22.12.2005 / 94,4 %
4 / Irkutsk Region / Tishanin A. / 26.08.2005 / 93,33 %
5 / Ivanovo Region / Menn M. / 22.11.2005 / 91,43 %
6 / Kabardino-Balkar Republic / Kanokov A. / 28.09.2005 / 100 %
7 / Kaliningrad Region / Boos G. / 16.09.2005 / 93,1 %
8 / Koryak District / Kozhemyako O. / 15.04.2005 / 100 %
9 / Nizhnii Novgorod Region / Shantsev V. / 08.08.2005 / 85,71 %
10 / North Osetiya-Alaniya / Mamsurov T. / 07.06.2005 / 92,54 %
11 / Saratov Region / Ipatov P. / 03.03.2005 / 100 %
12 / Tula Region, / Dudka V. / 30.03.2005 / 97,37 %
13 / Tyumen Region / Yakushev V. / 24.11.2005 / 92 %
Table 3: Governors who have been nominated by the president and confirmed by legislative assemblies after the end of their term in power, 2005
# / Region / Governor / Date of Confirmation / % of vote1 / Agin-Buryat District / Zhamsujev B. / 15.09.2005 / 100 %
2 / Chukotka District / Abramovich R. / 21.10.2005 / 84,62 %
3 / Jewish Autonomous Region / Volkov N. / 25.02.2005 / 93,33 %
4 / Khanty-Mansi District / Filipenko A. / 24.02.2005 / 100 %
5 / Komi Republic / Torlopov V. / 07.12.2005 / 93,1 %
6 / Perm Region / Chirkunov O. / 10.10.2005 / 87,18 %
7 / Vladimir Region / Vinogradov N. / 18.02.2005 / 75,68 %
8 / Yamal-Nenets District / Neelov Y. / 11.03.2005 / 100 %
Table 4: Governors who applied for nomination before the end of their term in power, 2005
# / Region / Governor / Date of Confirmation / % of vote1 / Amur Region / Korotkov L. / 24.02.2005 / 58,33 %
2 / Chelyabinsk Region / Sumin P. / 18.04.2005 / 93,33 %
3 / Chuvash Republic (Chuvashiya) / Fedorov N. / 29.08.2005 / 97,1 %
4 / Evenk District / Zolotarev B. / 03.03.2005 / 95,83%
5 / Ingushetiya, Republic of / Zyazikov M. / 15.06.2005 / 88,24 %
6 / Kalmykiya, Republic of / Ilyumzhinov K. / 24.10.2005 / 88 %
7 / Kaluga Region / Artamonov A. / 26.07.2005 / 82,5 %
8 / Kemerovo Region / Tuleev A. / 20.04.2005 / 100 %
9 / Kostroma Region / Shershunov V. / 21.04.2005 / 83,33 %
10 / Kursk Region / Mikhailov A. / 22.02.2005 / 91,11 %
11 / Lipetsk Region / Korolev O. / 28.05.2005 / 89,47 %
12 / Mordoviya, Republic of / Merkushin N. / 10.11.2005 / 93,62 %
13 / Orel Region / Stroev E. / 23.04.2005 / 92 %
14 / Orenburg Region / Chernyshov A. / 15.06.2005 / 87,23 %
15 / Penza Region / Bochkarev V. / 14.05.2005 / 93,33 %
16 / Primorskii Krai / Darkin S. / 04.02.2005 / 89,74 %
17 / Rostov Region / Chub V. / 14.06.2005 / 91,11 %
18 / Samara Region / Titov K. / 26.04.2005 / 88 %
19 / Smolensk Region / Maslov V. / 24.06.2005 / 89,58 %
20 / Stavropol Krai / Chernogorov A. / 31.10.2005 / 92 %
21 / Sverdlovsk Region / Rossel E. / 21.11.2005 / 87,76 %
22 / Tambov Region / Betin O. / 13.07.2005 / 98 %
23 / Tatarstan, Republic of / Shaymiev M. / 25.03.2005 / 89,9 %
24 / Tyumen Region / Sobjanin S. / 17.02.2005 / 96 %