Experts say that the presidential election campaign due to finish on March 2 has been one of the most vigorous and interesting of the last decade. In their opinion, Putin made an all-out effort, while his opponents put up a real fight, supplementing their usual arsenals with tougher rhetoric and high quality video commercials. They were forced to involve not only PR experts but also psychologists in their campaigns.
The presidential election in Russia will take place on March 4. The post of president, who this year will be elected for a term of six years for the first time, is being fought over by the following candidates: current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, Head of the Liberal Democratic Party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Sergei Mironov from A Just Russia, and independent candidate Mikhail Prokhorov.
Political scientist Vladimir Slatinov said on this score: “This campaign has obviously been much more interesting than previous ones. In 2004, nobody opposed Putin. Let’s be honest about it – he did not have a serious contender. Unlike in previous years, this time we have actually seen a real campaign.”
Political analysts have praised Putin’s election campaign, noting a substantial change in his style of conduct compared to 2004.
Political scientist Nikolai Zlobin said: “He [Putin] is making an all-out effort in the election campaign for the first time, working in a Western style, working really hard. He has developed a certain Western style, and should be given credit for this. I did not expect him to work flat out.”
He noted that Putin “changed the style of his election campaign and started conducting it personally, not delegating to anyone.”
Western experts agree that during this campaign Putin has come across as quite a different leader than he usually does in his meetings with officials and has opted for an informal style of communicating with his audience, like they do in Europe and the United States. They noted that the days of sullen Russians monotonously reading out texts written in advance are long gone.
Yevgeny Minchenko, Director of the International Institute for Political Analysis, said that Putin’s weekly program articles had helped him stay in the public spotlight.
“Putin’s articles came out at the beginning of every week, helping him command the agenda,” he said.
Slatinov noted that the prime minister’s campaign relied on three pillars.
“The first pillar is spoon-feeding the paternalistic strata and making them ever more lavish promises. The second is the rhetoric of intimidating people with the chaos and instability of the 1990s, and the third is his, I believe, quite skilful use of a lack of a viable alternative,” he said.
“There is no doubt, this campaign has been a success – he has pulled off playing the role of the father of the nation who listens to everyone and makes promises to one and all,” Slatinov added.
He emphasized that the campaign had been “designed to show that there are sparring partners engaged in noisy debates and then there is the father of the nation who cares about everyone, hears everyone, and is ready to do even more.”
Political commentators believe Putin made a good choice in his election agents, many of whom are recognized as authorities in their field. Although this provoked extensive negative coverage in social networks and blogs, Putin managed to score points with it, thereby resolving one of the main problems that emerged during the protests in the wake of the December elections.
Minchenko comments: “There was a stereotype that all celebrities are opposed to the government. When the public saw Putin’s election agents and videos coming out in support of him, it turned out many people working in culture and the arts were actually on his side.”
Experts believe that the debates were the weak point of his campaign. They note that the election agents who acted on Putin’s behalf during verbal duels could not compare with the “usual crowd” and looked quite unconvincing. At the same time, they think that debates were never designed to play a serious role in Putin’s campaign.
Slatinov notes that people who represented Putin at the debates found it hard to compete with seasoned politicians.
“Take Narochnitskaya [political scientist Natalia Narochnitskaya], she is a smart person but it was obviously a mistake on her part to oppose Zhirinovsky because politically they are light years apart,” he observed.
Zlobin believes that Putin needed a “strong intellectual sparring partner” to point out the most acute and pressing issues for him.
The Outrageous Zhirinovsky
Expert opinions on Zhirinovsky’s campaign varied. Slatinov called it one of the most boisterous. He noted that Zhirinovsky acted in his usual scandalous manner and stuck to his tough rhetoric in criticizing the current government. But Minchenko did not see anything new in this. He said “there is no point in performing the same trick twice.”
“Zhirinovsky was his usual self – aggressive and at times downright rude. I think he turned out to be Putin’s main opponent in this campaign. At least, he lashed out at the current government like nobody else did. He made the most accusations, and these accusations were the most harsh and biting,” Slatinov said.
He noted that it was no other than Zhirinovsky who “described the mechanism of fraud in the minutest detail and raised the issue of the role of administrating the elections.”
His campaign videos, including the one with the donkey, which provoked widespread discussion, “were in the same scandalous vein.”
“Although his age is showing, his campaign was very bright,” Slatinov said. “Of course, he made the most of his talents as a speaker and his customary image.”
He suggested that this might be Zhirinovsky’s last presidential campaign and that his main purpose was to show that “over the next five years his party will be a serious political force to be reckoned with.”
According to Minchenko, Zhirinovsky conducted the campaign in his traditional style and did not make any new moves.
“Zhirinovsky reminds me of old Russian movies like The Straw Hat, The Carnival Night, or the Irony of Fate – it seems we know everything by heart and won’t see anything new but we have got used to watching them – just like we feel we have to watch The Irony of Fate again every New Year’s eve, we think that we have to take another look at Zhirinovsky during the election campaign,” he said.
Minchenko said that his slogans “Vote for Zhirinovsky and life will be better” or “Vote for Zhirinovsky or life will be worse” are similar to those that accompanied Boris Yeltsin’s campaign in 1996 – “Vote or lose” and “Vote and win.”
Zyuganov Turns Pink, Mironov Shows Restraint
“Zyuganov conducted an impressive campaign. I liked his promotional videos – they were excellent and convincing. They showed Zyuganov as a respectable statesman,” Slatinov said.
He noted that the Communist Party leader changed his rhetoric during this election campaign, “It was more moderate, not so hard-line left-wing.”
In other words, “Zyuganov has turned pink. After all, the Communist Party is increasingly moving toward the center. Zyuganov understands that he can get additional votes not from his core constituency but from other sections of society that are dissatisfied with the government. And these are people who are less communist in their views and more middle-of-the-road,” Slatinov observed.
At the same time, there was some inertia in Zyuganov’s campaign because he has been in politics for too long and “could not avoid making some repetitions,” the expert said.
Minchenko thinks that Zyuganov was very traditional during the debates and his duels with opponents were some of the dullest.
Experts called Mironov’s campaign weak. They said it was even less convincing than his party’s campaign during the Duma elections.
They believe Mironov failed in his bid to become a serious center-left opponent to the current government.
“It was clear that something was holding Mironov back. Although he seemed to criticize the government, there was something that prevented him from going all out,” Slatinov noted.
Minchenko believes that Mironov was relying primarily on his low disapproval ratings and the hope that undecided voters would support the less repulsive candidate.
“Mironov’s campaign was very conservative,” he summed up.
Prokhorov – A Fresh Face
Experts were generally positive about Prokhorov’s campaign although they had earlier criticized it for a weak start – he did not have a meaningful agenda and was not open enough with his potential constituents.
Experts say that Prokhorov, who came to politics less than a year ago and had already had some negative experience in party building with the Right Cause party, still had one indisputable advantage – he presented a fresh face.
“He is the only new man out of the five and this gives him an advantage – and not just among the middle class but among all those who are tired of the same old players,” Slatinov said.
He suggested that the sharp criticism of the MP opposition leaders, whom Prokhorov repeatedly called “Duma seniors” and accused of having ties with the Kremlin, was primarily aimed at emphasizing that he is a new man and at winning the votes of a tired electorate.
“Debates with Prokhorov had the highest ratings because the others are all so familiar. He is a new man and people watched him with interest,” Minchenko agreed.
Slatinov recalled that the billionaire proclaimed himself as “the chief anti-Putin” opponent but “did not dare criticize the current government too much.”
“Prokhorov was obviously trying to curry favor with voters from the angry middle class. I think he looked quite convincing to the middle classes. But he was more eager to present himself and his program than to oppose the government,” Slatinov said.
In Minchenko’s opinion, Prokhorov’s campaign commercials were weak and his campaign lacked a creative approach. At the same time he noted Prokhorov’s progress since the start of his political activities.
“Prokhorov is making progress. It is obvious that his psychologists and specialists have been doing a good job,” he noted.
