[Interview] Why does Putin bother with elections when everybody knows they are a sham? Russia expert explains weekend vote – and how it may escalate war

No party critical of Russia’s war with Ukraine is standing in the Russian parliamentary elections, which for decades have been neither free nor fair. Only parties in support of Vladimir Putin and his so-called special military operation are allowed to contest in the elections running from today until Sunday (20 September). Ordinary Russians are feeling the consequences of the war with Ukraine, so the elections to the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, are an important litmus test of Putin’s hold on power in Russia. Filip Scherf, a Czech expert on Russia, breaks down how war has shaped the election campaign. Speaking to Denník N, our sister publication, he covers: Why the Kremlin bothers to put on these sham elections. The ideal outcome of votes for Putin. An emerging faction of nationalist war veterans in the Duma. How the election results may escalate Russian aggression in Europe. Russian parliamentary candidates are screened vigorously to ensure Putin’s critics do not stand. Who can anti-war Russians vote for? Russians who oppose the war have few candidates they can vote for. They could vote for the so-called systemic opposition. But these parties either support the war or are forced to support it – not ideal. Another option is to sit out the vote. This upsets voter turnout, which the Kremlin hopes will be high so as to give it more credibility. Voters might also cast a blank ballot, but this is a somewhat toothless form of protest. This will not reduce the share of votes for United Russia or other systemic parties, and statistics will show they took part in the election - good news for the Kremlin. Anti-war Russians therefore have few options. They could protest in the streets or express their view online, but this begs the question of how effective that really is, and what repercussions they could face. Some have suggested that Russians should take ballots home to ensure they are missing from ballot boxes. Others say to write anti-war messages on ballots. Would this have an effect? In the wider picture of Russian parliamentary elections, such gestures are acts of desperation. They play no role beyond being personal stories, which of course the Western media may play up, but in practice they have no effect on election results or on Putin’s regime. Yabloko, the only party critical of the war, was banned from the contest. Was it due to their stance on war? The Yabloko party did not even speak out directly against the war since that would de facto be considered treason in the Russian context. They only hinted through some of its representatives that it might be time for peace since the war no longer make sense. And although it opposed the war so timidly, they were branded as defeatist. The party was barred from standing precisely because Putin requires absolute consensus on foreign policy. The Kremlin says it is waging a defensive war it it must see through to victory. Yabloko even questioning this was enough for it to receive the scathing label of “non-systemic opposition”. Russia has not held free and fair elections for a long time. Will the repression in these elections by any different? It is not so much about repression during the elections themselves, but about the functioning of a system that has been built over the past two and a half decades. It is a system of “managed democracy”, with no room for contrarianism. So in this respect, the elections will be the same. But they will be different in other respects. Voting will now take place in the newly occupied (annexed) territories, a major logistical test for the Kremlin. If successful, it will push that “fascist junta” in Ukraine refuse to organise elections but Russia did. Further, the war has lasted so long that it has brought politics to demographics that were previously apolitical. This is seen through military attacks and returning veterans who now make up a significant part of Russia’s emerging elite. The war seems a no-go topic, but has Russia's war shaped the campaign anyway? Definitely. Politics has found people who never took any interest in it and had been part of the Putinist consensus (i.e. they stayed out of politics in exchange for stability and rising prosperity). The was disrupted that. A large number of veterans, an emerging elite in Russian society, are standing for the Duma. They are nationalist and often more radical than Putin himself. This new faction is pushing the Russian leader into a corner, reducing hopes for compromise with Ukraine. Paradoxically, veterans' arrival will strengthen the Kremlin’s chauvinist narrative and narrow the president's already limited wiggle room. Putin has defied expectations by taking a hands-on role in this campaign. Does that show he is nervous and not entirely secure in his position? Putin has never been a member of the United Russia party and always sought to present himself as above party politics, but neither has he made a secret of his support for the “party of power”. He entered this eletion campaign in a remarkable way. He has not addressed technocratic, financial or social issues, but instead played up a “meta-narrative” which holds that Russia is defending itself against a malevolent West, is betrayed by other but will never be brought to its knees and will fight through to victory. He introduced this existential dimension into otherwise routine, technical elections, which politicians of United Russia led by Dmitry Medvedev immediately began repeating. Are ordinary Russians bothered to vote? Russia’s population is so large and diverse that no broad generalisation is possible, but we can see two main trends. Since politics has come directly to people and the Kremlin is stressing the gravity of the situation, part of society wants to get involved, show solidarity and support the regime. Another part, however, is fed up, frustrated and feels powerless — it does not want to vote or does not know whom to vote for. The situation is polarising Russian society with one faction patriotic and the other apathetic and lost for what to do. Who is standing? Is there any credible opposition ? The parties purposefully and deliberately cover the full conventional political spectrum, from the Communists on the left, through United Russia in the centre, and conservative right-wing parties such as A Just Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). The system is designed so that every voter can find a suitable party. But political competition is a place only for “safe” issues. On major strategic issues, there is a pre-imposed consensus. Has war and conscription featured in United Russia’s official campaign? Hardly at all. It is an exceptionally toxic issue, which a large part of Russian society fears. United Russia only unveiled its election programme, bizarrely, during the second phase of the campaign, less than a month before the elections. Until then, the campaign had been virtually devoid of content, since nobody had seen the programme. The debate about forced mobilisation is barely mentioned even in the final phase. No United Russia politician would dare claim that mandatory elistment will not happen — that would be a lie, since these politicians do not decide on it. At the same time, nobody can say it will happen, as that would be extremely unpopular. In the past, voting for the Communists was seen as a protest vote. How have they approached these elections?