Russian winters have demolished a few threats to the government’s power throughout history — literally freezing Napoleon’s attempted 1812 invasion in its tracks as half a million troops succumbed to frostbite and hypothermia. More than a century later, Hitler’s advancing army planned for a quick summer victory and packed accordingly. Fuel froze inside the tanks, warmer uniforms failed to materialize, and Russia beat back another would-be conqueror.
Today, temperatures in Moscow feel like roughly negative 7 degrees, but Russian opposition seems prepared to defy the established political order despite the bitter cold and an equally frosty governmental response.
On Feb. 4, protesters in subzero temperatures demanded legitimate elections and denounced the ruling United Russia party. Reports of the rally’s size vary — the government estimated 36,000 people in attendance, while opposition leaders claimed more than 120,000 took to the streets.
This scale of participation indicates major discontent over the upcoming presidential election. Last September, Pres. Dmitri Medvedev announced plans to effectively swap positions with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instead of running for a second presidential term.
The move jeopardized the already fragile image of Russian democracy; Putin served as president between 2000 and 2008 before choosing Medvedev as his successor once his constitutional term limit expired.
December’s parliamentary elections provided one outlet for the Russian public to express dissatisfaction. United Russia officially garnered 49 percent of the vote, which the International Institute for Security Studies reported as a major setback compared to previous years. Independent monitors condemned fraud, as election officials filled out extra ballots for United Russia and bussed voters from district to district.
Because of increased civic activism, Russian citizens tracked the fraud they saw at their local station and posted comments and videos online. Allegations of corruption sparked immediate demonstrations demanding new elections and the resignation of Vladimir Churov, head of the Central Election Commission.
The continuing protests certainly pose a challenge to the government, which would struggle to stamp out such a large and well-publicized group. The post-election changes alone prompted opposition leader Alexey Navalny to remark that after spending two weeks in prison, he returned to an entirely transformed political landscape.
“Foreign Policy” magazine notes the diverse backgrounds present within the movement. The discontent united members of the Communist, Nationalist, and Center-left parties shown by Navalney’s urge to “Vote, and vote for anyone but United Russia.” Members of the middle class and youth, previously skeptical of civic engagement, also appear in the crowds.
Even given public anger, it’s unlikely that Putin will manage to lose his March election. A best-case scenario for the opposition would be preventing Putin from winning outright in the first round of voting, forcing him and the second-place finisher into a second runoff election.
While the Cold War ended two decades ago, Russia’s size, location, energy resources, nuclear arsenal, economic status and international clout should merit careful attention to its internal politics. Assuming Putin gains his third term, what can we expect to change?
We can learn from other protests against authoritarian rule. Russia may take a page out of Saudi Arabia’s book and use massive oil revenues to implement social programs aimed at calming the population. (Although widespread corruption could doom the effort.)
Protestors probably will remain staunchly committed to removing Putin and other key members of his regime from power, even if they attain some of their goals. The government appears to realize that crackdowns and violence could easily backfire and increase the opposition’s size and dynamism. It seems likely Russia will continue offering reforms to try mollifying the public, moderating its stance and slowly mending its political system.
Unfortunately, Putin already displayed his paranoia of international meddling in domestic affairs. He’s singled out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, insisting she encourages protests to undermine Russian power. Though sympathetic to Russian opposition, United States officials should resist the temptation to express support — United Russia could use such statements as proof of outside interference and strengthen its position by stoking nationalist fervor.
Fallout from December’s election proves independent groups such as election monitors, human rights organizations and the media can still lend credibility to the movement. In a year marked by protest, we can hope this Russian winter marks the beginning of a new era for democracy in the country.