Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-27T18:15:44.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - National elections and mass politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2009

Michael Urban
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Vyacheslav Igrunov
Affiliation:
Institute for Humanities and Political Studies, Moscow
Sergei Mitrokhin
Affiliation:
Institute for Humanities and Political Studies, Moscow
Get access

Summary

Consummated by an increasingly radical press and informal political movement, midwifed by the political reforms of perestroika, Russian politics was reborn in the national elections of 1989. The birthplace itself spanned myriad sites: voters' assemblies at factories or meeting halls, often raucous, occasionally violent and sometimes lasting till the wee hours of the morning; cramped apartments where candidates huddled with their staffs and volunteers discussing tactics, composing leaflets, arguing philosophy; city streets and public squares where contestants for office engaged the public directly, holding rallies, answering questions, distributing campaign literature. By the time the electoral process had run its course, the circle of political activism had expanded enormously, fanning out from cloisters of informal groups and enclaves of democratic orientation ensconced in official organizations to include millions of citizens who, for the first time in their lives, would have the opportunity to vote. Yet, for three related reasons, it would be mistaken to regard that voting as commensurate with an actual election. First, irrespective of the results of the balloting, there was no possibility whatsoever that the Communist Party could be removed from power. Its ‘leading role’ was still enshrined in the Soviet Constitution, while the legislature which was to be filled by successful candidates had not been designed either to choose or to control a government. The CPSU's political monopoly would remain intact; this election could neither turn it out of office nor serve as a mandate for the continuation of its rule.

Second, there was no organized challenge to its monopoly on power. Outside of the small Democratic Union (which, moreover, boycotted these elections), no other political party existed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×