Is It Worth the Price?
For a year the relations between Russia and Europe have been marked by exaggeratedly neglecting each other’s positions. Last year for the first time in Russia’s modern history, the observer mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) – Europe’s most reputed organization of experts monitoring democratic procedures – couldn’t come to the Duma elections, which caused quite a scandal. Although there had never been problems of that kind before, the mission was not allowed to organize the observation of the elections in due time, and the ODIHR simply refused to go to Russia in the end.
As to monitoring the presidential election, the case created even a bigger scandal. That time it was suggested that the ODIHR observers come two days before the election. Then the line was mitigated, and it was suggested that some observers start their work February 8, and the rest – February 20 (10 days before the election). No surprise, the ODIHR mission again refused to come. And the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of the North and electoral commissions of a number of states followed the ODIHR’s example.
Who benefited from the rows, which only aggravated Russia’s relations with Europe? Who and why feared that the ODIHR mission come two months, rather than a month before the election? On the scale of 96,000 polling stations, 1200 observers (as was in 2003) or 400 (in 2007) is a drop in the ocean. International observers have no right to lodge complaints about irregularities during electoral process, and their presence is mainly a sign of mutual respect and international diplomatic etiquette. Even Kazakhstan was not afraid to invite observers to its far less competitive elections.
One can presume that the moulding of the image of the enemy, necessary to mobilize voters in the course of an electoral campaign, suggests the moulding of the image of the external as well as the internal enemy within mass consciousness. But is it worth the price? After all, made-up threats assume material form when you least want it.
As a result, after last year’s deliberate scandal concerning the observers at the parliamentary elections, the PACE elected Spain’s socialist Lluís Maria de Puig, not Russia’s Mikhail Marguelov its new President in January. Some of the PACE members, worried by the crackdown on democratic freedoms in Russia, openly opposed the candidacy of Mr Marguelov.
Since January, the number of problems in the relations between Russia and Europe hasn’t decreased. Some of them are reflected in the agenda of the current PACE session. These include Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, the Ukrainian famine (Holodomor) subject newly brought up by Ukraine, and the power abuse within criminal justice bodies in Belorus, Russia’s ally. Moscow’s stance on the matters could be more convincing unless it gave cause for accusing it of not being completely honest in the course of the elections, which were carried out in a strange way. This is the price of the patriot’s games, who, countering mythical challenges at first, are not able to face the real ones thereafter. All in all, the pointed reluctance to listen to criticism causes Russia’s failure to be listened to.
Alexander Kynev, Head of Regional Programs Department of Foundation for Information Policy Development
All the Article in Russian as of Apr. 15, 2008
|
