- It is somewhat hypocritical for Western nations to lecture Russia on democracy when they themselves have established norms and limitations on acceptable political discourse.
- There haven’t been reports of mysterious ballots appearing out of nowhere like the 2020 US presidential elections, nor have there been instances of government agents coercing people to vote for Putin or any other candidate.
- Despite the limited number of candidates in the recent elections, Russian voters still had distinct choices (more than the US) with differing political viewpoints.
Many foreign observers who have criticized the Russian election process, have overlooked crucial aspects. They have labelled it as “unfair,” “rigged,” or “pre-determined,” yet it’s important to note that there’s no widespread evidence of government fraud like the allegations in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential elections, which would justify the claim of rigged elections. There haven’t been reports of mysterious ballots appearing out of nowhere like the 2020 US presidential elections, nor have there been instances of government agents coercing people to vote for Putin or any other candidate.
What they primarily mean by “unfair” is the lack of diversity among the candidates. In the recent Russian elections, there were only four candidates: Putin (running as an independent), Kharitonov (from the Communist Party), Davankov (representing the centrist ideology), and Slutsky (associated with the liberal-right wing). Despite the apparent diversity in their backgrounds, all of these candidates, notably, shared a common stance in supporting Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, which indicates a significant convergence in their ideological positions.
Comparatively, let’s examine the United States’ electoral landscape. It’s a common occurrence to witness only two serious presidential candidates: one from the Democratic Party and the other from the Republican Party. Much like in Russia, these parties often find substantial agreement on key issues, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Thus, the limited diversity among candidates is not unique to Russia but is also observed in established Western democracies like the United States.
There’s an argument often put forth that genuine opposition is systematically stifled within Russia. However, it’s essential to recognize that similar dynamics exist in other democracies, including the United States. For instance, the Biden administration has actively opposed former President Donald Trump, despite him not posing a direct threat to the American democratic system.
Furthermore, it’s worth acknowledging that every nation has its set of accepted political beliefs, including the United States. Therefore, it’s somewhat hypocritical for Western nations to lecture Russia on democracy when they themselves have established norms and limitations on acceptable political discourse. Moreover, in the US, the need for significant financial resources often acts as a barrier to entry for potential candidates, effectively narrowing the pool to individuals with access to substantial wealth.
In this context, it’s understandable why Russia might choose to exclude opposition candidates, particularly those perceived to be allied with Western interests, in order to safeguard its political system from potential destabilization. Despite the limited number of candidates in the recent elections, Russian voters still had distinct choices with differing political viewpoints. Ultimately, 88% of Russians cast their votes for Putin, indicating a widespread perception of his qualifications based on his background and leadership strength.
(Srijan Kumar is currently pursuing a PhD in South Asian studies from Delhi University. He is a writer and a columnist for various digital media houses. Opinions expressed are the author’s own)
Balaji Subramanian 
Dhruv Ashok 
Aayush Pal