A clear sign of discontent. What lessons can be learned?

The Sunday election had several remarkable features. The first is that the vote was, as in the 1990s, not for someone favored or for the most attractive party platform. It was a vote against. And above all against the United Russia party. That’s the primary reason for the unexpectedly high results the communists and the A Just Russia party have gained. Those who were too disgusted to give their vote to the communists, voted for the Yabloko party, whose electoral results seem suspiciously overmodest.

The turning point of the electoral mood was undoubtedly the announcement made by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev during the United Russia party convention at the end of September. The manner of announcing Medvedev stepping down and Putin coming back as president appeared as a backroom decision made without even a formal gesture toward the voters. And this was the last straw; the populace considered such a style so humiliating that an irritated reaction was soon revealed. People do not want to be treated anymore in such a degrading manner.

In this regard, the social activity of those over 30 was remarkable, and that’s the second trait of this election. These people have never yet demonstrated their convictions. They’ve preferred either to submit themselves to the ongoing state of affairs for some future benefit or to express their indignation on social networks. Apart from select cases, this election was the first evidence in real, not virtual, life of the next generation showing its irritation. Graduate and undergraduate students resolutely took part in the election, joining up as members of the electoral commissions, observers, etc. for the opportunity to oversee ballot counting and prevent rigging.

The third interesting issue is related to the people’s activity at the polls. In the previous elections, authorities were anxious for a high voter turnout. Since the outcome was clear and predictable long before Election Day, many simply saw no reason to come and vote. The authorities worried about the overall legitimacy of those who would be elected, and focused their efforts on encouraging more voters to arrive at the polls.

This time, vice versa, the voter activity was the headache of authorities no longer interested in larger voter attendance, particularly in the big cities that traditionally show less loyalty to pro-government parties. The purpose was rather to lower turnout than to increase it. That’s why many observers are surprised by the unexpectedly high vote count that United Russia received in the big cities.

Finally, new technologies for the first time played an integral part of the campaign. Before the election, dozens of audio and video clips were posted on the internet to show what government directives were given at the polls to achieve better results for the pro-government party. On the day of the vote, cell phones with cameras and audio recorders were used widely to watch for violations, and this apparently prevented larger riggings as people were scared to be recorded and “perpetuated” on the net. 
This election has shown for the first time the power of new devices and the willingness of people to use them, though the future consequences are still unknown. The role of networks and, more broadly, of those who actively use these new technologies not only to view their friends’ pictures or post their own, but to exchange opinions and even to prepare to act, may be a key to the very near future, especially as the presidential election approaches in March.

Authorities are likely little aware of the genuine reasons for the people’s resentment and how to deal with this new reality. The people are no longer satisfied with the course of enfeebled stability the government wants to impose. This means that if the acting body plans to successfully hold power, dramatic changes in the political, social and economic goals should be carried out.

Now we will observe how the electoral result, which undoubtedly is worse than expected, will affect the political behavior of these leaders and key officials.
The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but political aggravation is apparent and the legitimacy of those in office is eroding.

The situation is still unpredictable, and much depends on how the government and law enforcement agencies act in both the internet and real life in the coming months. They may opt to blame the perturbed population for rocking the boat, and tighten control over protests; or, perhaps, they will reveal a new approach that, at least for now, could convince voters that their concerns are heard and taken into account.