Public Perceptions of Electoral Fairness in Russia

Figures & data

TABLE 1 
Perceptions of Election Fairness at Different Levels of Government 2007–2008 (VTsIOM data )

	Date of survey	Entirely honestly	Somewhat honestly	Somewhat dishonestly	Entirely dishonestly	Hard to say
President	May 2007	17	45	18	6	13
	Sept 2007	15	42	19	7	17
	Jan 2008	15	49	15	4	17
Duma	May 2007	7	33	34	10	17
	Sept 2007	7	32	32	12	18
	Jan 2008	9	43	22	5	20
Regional assemblies	May 2007	6	29	35	11	19
	Sept 2007	7	28	33	13	19
	Jan 2008	8	40	24	5	23
Heads of towns and districts	May 2007	6	28	33	13	20
	Sept 2007	7	27	33	14	20
	Jan 2008	8	38	24	7	24
The question was: ‘How honestly, in your view, do election campaigns usually take place to the various organs of government?’.
Source: adapted from ‘O chestnosti vyborov v Rossii’, Press-vypusk, No. 877, 21 February 2008, available at: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=268&uid=9667, last accessed 23 January 2011; rounded percentages.

TABLE 2 
Perceptions of Fairness in the 2003 and 2007 Duma Elections (VTsIOM data )

	2003	2007
How would you assess the recent election campaign for the State Duma?
‘The elections took place in an open, democratic and honest political struggle’	49	53
‘These elections cannot be considered wholly free and democratic’	26	19
‘Hard to say’	25	28
To what extent do you think you can trust the results of the parliamentary election?
‘I think the results are reliable and correspond to the expressed wishes of the electorate’	39	45
‘There might have been some falsifications in local areas but they did not affect the results of the voting in the country as a whole’	33	29
‘I think the results of the elections should not be trusted’	14	12
‘Hard to say’	14	14
Source: adapted from ‘Vybory-2007: byli oni chestnymi, svobodnymi i demokratichnymi?’, Press-vypusk, No. 838, 17 December 2007, available at: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=268&uid=9384, accessed 23 January 2011; rounded percentages.

TABLE 3 
Perceptions of Fairness in Duma Elections, 1999–2007 (FOM data )

	1999	2003	2007
In your view, did the counting of votes in the parliamentary election take place honestly, or were the results tampered with or falsified?
It took place honestly	38	52	53
It was falsified	32	18	11
Hard to say	30	30	36
Are you personally satisfied or dissatisfied with the results of the parliamentary elections?
Satisfied	39	49	65
Indifferent	20	19	14
Dissatisfied	25	19	11
Hard to say	16	14	10
Source: adapted from Vybory (2008a, p. 373); rounded percentages.

TABLE 4 
The Honesty of Elections in 2003 and 2007 (FOM data )

	2003	2007
Do elections reflect public opinion?
Yes	38	35
No	43	50
Hard to say	21	15
Were elections to the Duma over the past 15 years generally honest or dishonest?
Honest	n.d	26
Dishonest	n.d.	34
Hard to say	n.d.	39
The questions were: ‘Some people think that election results reflect public opinion. Others think that election results do not reflect public opinion. With which view, the first or the second, do you agree?’; ‘Speaking of the elections to the State Duma that have taken place over the past 15 years, would you say that on the whole they were honestly or dishonestly conducted?’.
Source: adapted from Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) (2007); rounded percentages.

TABLE 5 
Expectations of the Presidential Elections, 2005–2008 (Levada Centre Data )

	April 2005	April 2006	April 2007	October 2007	January 2008	February 2008
‘There will be a real contest among the candidates’	29	33	34	32	37	30
‘There will only be the appearance of a contest: the president will be the one Putin selects/the distribution of the vote will be decided by the authorities’	57	51	49	54	48	58
‘Hard to say’	14	17	17	14	15	13
The question wording was: ‘What do you think, at the presidential election of 2 March of this year, will there be a real competition of candidates or only an imitation of it, and the distribution of the vote will be decided by the authorities?’
Source: adapted from ‘Kak vy schitaete … ’, n.d. [February 2008], available at: http://www.levada.ru/vybory20080.html, last accessed 24 January 2011; rounded percentages.

FIGURE 1 Perceptions of Fairness of Duma Elections, 2001–2010

TABLE 6 
Votes Cast Under Pressure, 2000–2008

	2000	2005	2008
Yes, vote made under pressure	0.3	0.5	1
Yes, vote made under pressure but made no difference to my choice	3	4	8
No pressure	97	96	91
Total	100	100	100
(N)	(1,157)	(1,790)	(1,723)
The question wording was: ‘Could you please tell whether anyone made any attempts through giving presents to you, threatening you or in any other way to influence your decision on your participation/non-participation in the election or on your choice how to vote in the election to the State Duma?’
Source: authors' surveys (see note 8); percentages.

TABLE 7 
Reasons for Abstention, 2003 and 2008

	2003	2008
Could not get to polling station	35	32
Indecision, lack of choice	9	7
Alienation, distrust	39	44
Results will be falsified	4	4
Duma irrelevant	3	3
No political interest	8	4
Other	2	6
Total	100	100
(N)	(508)	(425)
The question wording was: ‘Why didn't you participate in the last State Duma/Presidential election?’
Source: authors' surveys (see note 8); rounded percentages.

TABLE 8 
Explanations for Electoral Fairness, 2003–201 0

	Standardised coefficients
	2003	2005	2008	2010
Social background
Gender (male)	−0.02	−0.05*	−0.02	−0.02
Age	−0.02	0.02	0.00	−0.01
Tertiary education	0.00	−0.04	−0.05	−0.02
Democratic orientation
Country moving to democracy	0.04	−0.04	0.11**	−0.01
Democracy best system	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.07**
Voted last election	0.14**	0.06*	0.06*	0.07**
Partisanship
Supports government	0.08**	0.11**	0.21**	0.19**
Approves of Putin	0.24**	0.18**	0.25**	0.12**
Perceptions of corruption
Most officials corrupt	−0.08**	−0.15**	−0.06*	−0.11*
Bribery increasing	−0.07*	−0.04	−0.12**	−0.07**
Adjusted R-squared	0.15	0.11	0.26	0.12
(N)	(2,000)	(2,000)	(2,000)	(2,017)
Notes: *, statistically significant at p<0.05, **, p<0.01. Ordinary least squares regression analysis showing standardised (beta) coefficients predicting the probably of seeing the election as fair.
Source: authors' surveys (see note 8).

TABLE 9 
The Consequences of Electoral Fairness for Political Attitudes, 2010

	Standardised coefficients
	Satisfaction with democracy	Political efficacy
Elections fair	0.11**	0.06*
Social background
Gender (male)	−0.02	0.05*
Age	−0.06*	−0.06*
Tertiary education	−0.04	0.04
Democratic orientation
Country moving to democracy	0.22**	0.10**
Democracy best system	0.06*	−0.05
Voted last election	0.03	0.08*
Partisanship
Supports government	−0.01	−0.05
Approves of Putin	0.05	0.02
Perceptions of corruption
Most officials corrupt	−0.08**	−0.22**
Bribery increasing	−0.07**	−0.13**
Adjusted R-squared	0.17	0.13
(N)	(2,017)	(2,017)
Notes: *, statistically significant at p<0.05, **, p<0.01. Ordinary least squares regression analysis showing standardised (beta) coefficients predicting the probably of seeing the election as fair.
Source: authors' 2010 survey (see note 8).

TABLE 10 
Perceptions of Electoral Fairness in Nine Post-communist Countries

Rank	Country and survey year	Completely fair	2	3	4	Completely unfair	Total	(N)
1.	Romania (1996)	62	19	9	4	6	100	(1,123)
2.	Hungary (1998)	59	23	13	3	2	100	(1,436)
3.	Poland (1997)	47	25	18	6	4	100	(1,615)
4.	Czech Republic (1996)	47	33	16	3	1	100	(1,212)
5.	Slovenia (1996)	46	22	21	5	6	100	(1,878)
6.	Belarus (2001)	45	14	13	12	16	100	(851)
7.	Lithuania (1996)	31	25	18	12	14	100	(965)
8.	Russia (1999)	25	19	28	13	15	100	(1,537)
9.	Ukraine (1998)	23	14	28	12	23	100	(972)
The question wording was: ‘In some countries, people believe their elections are conducted fairly. In other countries, people believe that their elections are conducted unfairly. Thinking of the last election in [country], where would you place it on this scale of 1–5 where ONE means that the last election was conducted fairly and FIVE means that the last election was conducted unfairly?’ Rank is based on responses to the first option.
Source: Module I of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES).