Moscow. (Andrei Kolesnikov, RIA Novosti political commentator) The transcript of a conversation last March between Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the presidential administration, and the activists of the Russian Party of Life (RPL), published last week, has made the hypothetical formation of a bipartisan system in Russia into breaking news. The RPL, a low profile "reserve" party of power, headed by Sergei Mironov, Speaker of the Federation Council (parliament's upper chamber), may unite with the once popular Rodina Party. Skillfully exploiting aggressive nationalistic rhetoric in the 2003 election, the latter bounced into parliament.
Ideally, the new alliance should get the votes of the left wing and moderate nationalists, and gradually replace the communists and populists of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR). It should become the "second leg" of the Russian political system, with United Russia (UR) as the "first leg".
Development of a two-party system will face many challenges, risks, and pitfalls. The absence of a clear-cut ideology and charismatic leaders are the worst obstacles. Administrative resource and the overt support of the president have been and remain United Russia's strongest points. But its ideology, based on the doctrine of "sovereign democracy" and the concept of the state's bigger participation in the economy, is still in the cradle. Its leader, Boris Gryzlov, is recognizable as the Speaker of the State Duma, one of the main political newsmakers in Russia. The RPL leaders lag far behind in both respects. Much depends on their ability to prioritize and make the best use of the once attractive Rodina brand. However, for the time being, the RPL's electoral rating is close to zero. Rodina and its potential partner - the Party of Pensioners (PP) - are getting 2% each (according to a recent poll by the Public Opinion Fund). UR remains the leader in Russia, and the explanation is simple - it has no rivals and its electoral rating (26% versus the 8% enjoyed by the communist runners-up) is the same as the popularity of the president. According to a July poll by the Levada Center, 32% of respondents believe that Russia should give official seal to a one-party system, and 41% are ready to see UR transformed into a replica of the former CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). The presidential administration's attempts to form at least a two-party system (favored by 42% of those polled by the Levada Center) are quite understandable - even the imitation of a competitive environment is better than dull and inefficient uniformity.
Political apathy, caused by dashed hopes, dominates the Russian electorate. People are tired of political upheavals and do not believe election promises. This is why they are ready to accept a one-party system. They are unable to understand politics and don't have political preferences. More than half of Russian voters will not go to the polls or do not know whom they will vote for.
Russia will stand to gain if the authorities establish a real political system with ideologically oriented parties that channel the interests of voters and make elections appealing again. But this will not happen before the next parliamentary elections in 2007. The new Duma, even if the RPL/Rodina alliance joins it, is bound to become a replica of parliament, with its dominant party of power, the weakening communists, the LDPR populists, who keep their seats because of voters' indifference, and the moderate left-wing nationalists, who are looking for new ways to attract the electorate. Thus, a bipartisan system will be the talk of the next political cycle, whether it is established by the authorities or forms naturally at the grassroots level.
Here is the riddle of the future inter-election period (2007-2011): Will Russia get a strong right-wing Liberal party? Will the government set it up, or will it be the offspring of old and new minor right-wing groups? If Russia wants to have its own elephant and donkey, the left wing should not represent its political system alone.
