Direct Elections Might Not Be So Bad After All
- By Konstantin Sonin
- Jun. 24 2008 00:00
It is difficult to compare direct gubernatorial elections with the practice of appointing them from Moscow. The 1990s and early 2000s were difficult in economic terms, but not because regional and federal elections were conducted on a competitive basis.
More likely, just the opposite was the case. The country's economic problems forced the Kremlin to allow voters the opportunity to replace governors and Duma deputies. Elections are ultimately the most peaceful and effective way to placate public discontent over the way politicians manage the country's affairs.
|To Our Readers|
The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.
Second, with the Kremlin playing such a prominent role in the economy, there is practically no threat of governors promoting regional protectionism the way they did a decade ago. The integration of the country's economy is happening for the same reasons so many nations are moving toward globalization.
Third, the country's diverse ethnic and geographic makeup further supports the case for instituting direct elections. Of course, some ethnic regions or republics might require more control from the center than others.
In good times like these, direct elections are not a critical issue. But if conditions were to worsen, gubernatorial elections could serve as a "safety cushion" for all Russians. Thus, it would not be a bad idea to have an extra insurance policy in case there is an unexpected shock to the current economic and political stability.
Konstantin Sonin, a professor at the New Economic School/CEFIR, is a columnist for Vedomosti.