In Russia, after an eight-year hiatus, in 2012direct legislative elections of the heads of the regions were resumed. For the elimination of a certain category of candidates, a municipal filter was introduced. This means that each of the applicants must collect for admission to the procedure a pre-determined number of signatures confirming the support of local government. This state of affairs caused heated discussions, disputes and verbal battles among politicians, many of whom consider the introduction of this position by an attempt to limit the possibilities of worthy candidates in the elections and to erect a barrier between them and their voters.
Our state has gained the status of an independent stateDecember 1991, from this historical moment having turned into a separate state with its own legislative system. Since then, more than ten years, the procedure for the election of heads of regions was carried out through popular voting. So continued until the period that was givenstart in 2004. Then the existing order was radically changed. Since then, for eight years, the governors have not been elected, but appointed. Candidates for this position put forward Legislative Assembly subjects. However, the final approval and appointment had the right to do only directly by the president of the Russian Federation.
Dissatisfied with such perturbations inthe political sphere was enough. Many parties and trends, as well as eminent personalities, considered it to be a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But despite the protests, the procedure was in force until 2012. Then Dmitry Medvedev, the term of his presidency was over, had a hand in order to restore the existing order, but with some additions. He supported the proposal D. Azarov, the mayor of Samara, about the introduction of the municipal filter, explaining this by a reasonable desire to identify the level of candidates even before the start of the election procedure held for the heads of regions.
Dissatisfied and politicians who criticizeinnovations, again it was enough. How did they motivate their protests? From their point of view, the introduction and existence of a municipal filter when choosing a governor is a kind of cunning and political game. Required number notarized заверенных подписей с поддержкой депутатов, most of which depend on the will of the authorities or directly nominated by the party "United Russia", in their opinion, in no way reflects the mood and opinion of the popular majority.
Единороссы вряд ли станут способствовать успеху candidates - representatives of other political parties. And this turns the election procedure into a child's play, the result of which, undoubtedly, it is possible to predict in advance. The percentage of votes necessary for the nomination of votes is high enough (ranging from 5 to 10%). In addition, the signatures are collected in at least three quarters of the municipalities, which, again, are controlled by representatives of the United Russia party.
A method for cleaning lists of candidates fromunwanted persons who are unsuitable for the posts of the heads of regions because of inadequacy or political failure, as it was supposed, in fact turned for many to an endless and purposeless, irresistible bureaucratic red tape. How was the municipal filter law implemented in practice for the period that has passed since its adoption?
Для зачисления в кандидаты на должность мэра Moscow it was necessary to submit 110 signatures from the same number of municipal councils. Acting for a certain moment in this post, such a task could not seem too complicated. After all, to implement prescribed By law, the mayor need only give appropriate instructions. Also он легко способен обеспечить другие условия своей victories among non-dangerous competitors. Other candidates failed to overcome the municipal filter. The only exceptions were representatives of large political parties. For example, the Communist Party.
As a reinforcement of its position on thisProponents of the situation put forward examples from international experience. Municipal filter in elections exists in many countries. France can serve as a weighty example in this issue from the developed civilized countries of Europe. However, in this state, the laws are not so cruel and uncompromising to the candidates.
What are the differences? There, a particular municipal leader has the right to sign not for one, as in Russia, but for an arbitrarily large number of applicants. Further the question is decided only by the will of the people, but everyone has a chance. As a result, only completely worthless candidates are cut off from the proposed list. In our country, a certain person not easy Has the right to vote in the nomination of only a single applicant, but also from corresponding the municipal council for the applicant can be signed by only one deputy.
The opposition objections from the parties in the Duma and the passion about the municipal filter turned out to be so serious that the decision of this The issue dealt with the Constitutional Court. The initiative came from the Communist Party, as well as the party "Fair Russia". They asked to check this position to identify possible inconsistencies with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Addition the need for prospective applicants torecognition of candidates for the posts of heads of regions to enlist the support of a certain percentage of deputies and municipalities, the opposition was also worried about other issues. For example, the right to consult the president with self-promoted and political parties, offering their representatives to these positions. Similar to the authors of the query in The cop considered as a gross interference in the internal relations in certain parties and private affairs of individuals from among the applicants.
The Constitutional Court found the complaintsirrelevant, and the established norms are fully consistent with the basic law of the state, that is, confirmed the legitimacy of the municipal filter in the election of the head of the subject of the Russian Federation. As stated, such a decision was made in order to preserve political stability. This opinion was expressed by a political scientist BUT. Kynev in an interview with the media.At the same time, supporters of this provision considered that the municipal filter helps to overcome potential conflicts in politics and contributes to the manifestation of healthy competition in this sphere of public life.
However, other experts did not support this view. Many of them state now that nothing Besides political squabbles and conflicts, administrative pressure and buying up signatures this state of affairs can not produce. In their opinion, it is obvious that the municipal filter in the elections of the governor of 2017 was much easier to overcome for candidates "United Russia". Moreover, such an artificial barrier prevents the emergence of new promising individuals in the political arena. and in fact, does not solve any of the existing problems.
Political analysts are of the opinion thatthe decision taken once by the Constitutional Court, in the near future, the state of political affairs and legislation in this area will change, and the once proposed and adopted system - to improve.
In June 2017 on the political arena of Russia bitter disputes broke out. Famous politician Sergey Kiriyenko - Chairman Russian government - argued for the abolition of the municipal filter. In reports FORGO and ISEPI It is offered its serious renovation:exemption from the procedure of collecting signatures for a number of parties, a reduction in the required percentage of votes for passing candidates and some other changes. Voices are rising and against the abolition of the existing situation. Today, there are also opinions about the positive effect of the municipal filter as a way of cutting off applicants with a criminal past, fake candidates and obvious populists.
Politicians fighting for the abolition of the municipalfilter, express also opinions on the return to the system that existed before 2012, that is, to the renewal of the appointments of governors by the president. An example of this can serve row prominent members "Party Great Fatherland". They believe that by choosing the head of state,gave him certain powers that he has the right to use. Such a distribution, in their opinion, greatly simplifies the system of appointments, as well as the removal from office of persons who cannot cope with their duties. And this is effective from a political and practical point of view.