PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
Well, just as in OTL, we have a referendum vote on April 25th, which "may" be part of General Lebed's plan to get rid of Zhirinovsky and keep the UIS together while getting the UN to end sanctions. But while I doubt Zhirinovsky could win an election in OTL, there is sort of a perfect storm here that gets Zhiri through this election despite evidence that the military is now fed up with him and is willing to cut him lose...
UIS Presidential Candidate Vladimir Putin in an interview with the BBC on August 1, 2011.
Discussing the April 25th Russian Government Referendum and the subsequent Constitutional Crisis that followed the Zhirinovsky victory.
BBC: If, as you claim, a military junta secretly controlled the country, why did they allow the referendum to occur on April 25th, 1993? Wouldn’t that be a threat to their power?
Putin: In a way yes, but the Russian people wanted these elections and we ran a greater risk ignoring the will of the people. Besides, we saw with our allies in Serbia that we didn’t necessarily need to fear elections.
BBC: So you knew that President Zhirinovsky would win?
Putin: No we did not. In fact, we were counting on him losing the election. It would have made things considerably easier.
BBC: What do you mean?
Putin: He won by such a close margin that his critics naturally claimed he rigged the election. Plus, with the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia boycotting the election, we needed a clear result, be it a victory or a defeat for Zhirinovsky. But in the end, we had a legitimately free election that was tainted by the boycott. As a result we were unable to get the sanctions lifted. General Lebed was counting on Zhirinovsky losing the vote of confidence.
BBC: So you are saying General Lebed actually supported the removal of Zhirinovsky?
BBC: Yes. He knew that a coup was not an option, at least not at that point. But if Zhirinovsky lost the referendum then the West might agree to lift sanctions and support the democratic forces that, at least on paper, were now in control of the country. These forces would be under threat from the fascists and the West might just swallow the bitter pill of a partitioned Croatia and an intact UIS if it meant keeping the fascists at bay against the democrats. That was what Lebed really cared about: keeping the Union together. He allowed the election as a way of testing the waters; of seeing if getting rid of Zhirinovsky would appease the West and the UN. Quite frankly, Vladimir Zhirinovsky had served his purpose. He had been the perfect boogieman, and the West would do anything if it meant getting rid of him. Anything.
BBC: What went wrong with the plan? How did Zhirinovsky win the referendum?
Putin: Well, first of all, we underestimated how effective a campaigner he was, and how difficult elections really were. We also underestimated his popularity and the impact of the boycott by the opposition. But the biggest factor had to be the Americans. They made a critical mistake that ruined everything.
BBC: How did the Americans ruin Lebed’s master plan?
Putin: By funneling money in to support the opposition.
Russian President Zhirinovsky calls snap elections; opposition party calls for general boycott
The Scotsman
April 07, 1992
Vladimir Zhirinovsky in front of a Liberal Democratic Party Banner calls for a referendum later in the month
(MOSCOW) In a stunning concession, Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky has agreed to hold elections in less than one month, calling it “a step towards a new and democratic Russia.” The move is seen as a concession to the United Nations, which earlier this month had made free and democratic elections a prerequisite for the lifting of sanctions.
“We are not afraid of elections!” Zhirinovsky said in front of a political banner which featured a Russia which encompasses Alaska and Poland. The banner, a clear provocation, did little to ease the nerves of those in the West.
“We in fact welcome elections,” Zhirinovsky added, “because we are not afraid of the Russian people! It is the Americans and the Turks who should be afraid of the Russian people!”
Zhirinovsky indicated that the country will hold a confidence vote on April 25th, giving the Russian people the opportunity to vote on three questions: a yes/no vote on if they support President Zhirinovsky, a yes/no vote on if they wish to remain as part of the UIS, and a yes/no vote on if they wish to hold early presidential elections at the end of the year.
However, it is unclear that this election will appease the West or be enough to put a dent in the sanctions. Serious questions remain as to how fair these elections can be in the current environment in Russia, and in the Russian Republic of Chechnya, there is already an indication that the entire republic plans to boycott the election. Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has called on supporters to boycott the referendum.
“This is just a sick attempt to trick the United Nations into believing that he has implemented reform,” Arutyunov told Le Monde, “and I call on all Russians to reject this farce!”
Republicans bash White House over attempts to violate Russian sanctions
NEW YORK TIMES
By JIM ZIMMERMAN
April 19, 1993
In what it turning into a major embarrassment for the Kerrey administration, Republican lawmakers have condemned the President over his unilateral decision to funnel money to Russian opposition groups. Most feel that Kerrey’s attempt to influence the upcoming referendum in the Russian republic on April 25th has actually strengthened the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky condemned the American President, calling his action “a blatant attempt to bribe the Russian people into selling out our country for 30 pieces of American silver.” The Kerrey administration has reportedly funneled nearly eighty million dollars to the offices of The Free and Democratic Russia in Paris and the Russian Democratic Alliance in Bonn, but as of yet it is unclear if any of the money has been able to enter Russia.
“To send this money to Paris knowing it will not influence what is certain to be a sham election is deeply troubling,” commented Republican Senator John McCain, “and it shows a lack of any concrete strategy in regards to the former Soviet Union other than to try and throw money at the problem.”
Russian television reported that former Prime Minister Ivan Silayev, who formed the Russian Democratic Alliance Party while in exile in Bonn, had purchased a 5.6 million dollar home in Western Germany three days ago. The Russian government has condemned the move and cited it as proof that the opposition is ill qualified to lead the country, citing concerns over corruption.
Excerpts from the book: “The Short Life and Violent Death of the UDR”
By Sampson Weiss.
Published by University of California Press, © 2005.
CHAPTER XXIV
Many assumed that the UDR, which had voted itself out of existence just one year prior, might be given a second life when Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky called on snap elections in April of 1993. The unpopular Russian President grossly underestimated his support, and with no answer to the rapidly declining economy, most assumed that the Russian Republic would quickly vote him out of office.
“People tend to forget that until April 25, 1993, Vladimir Zhirinovsky never won an election,” commented former American ambassador Jack Matlock, “the best he ever did was to capture around 8%. To expect him to garner more than 50% seemed impossible in a fair election.”
However, problems emerged almost immediately. Lacking any unified opposition, Vladimir Zhirinovsky quickly began to gain traction as he went on a cross country campaign that stressed his uncompromising stance against the United States and NATO.
“People tended to underestimate how much the Russian people wanted to see the UIS survive,” Matlock added, “the fact that the USSR morphed into a less centralized UDR which in turn morphed into an even weaker UIS troubled many ordinary Russians and gave Zhirinovsky a great deal more support than he probably would have earned had that issue not been on the ballot as well.”
Even more problematic was the refusal of the opposition in presenting a unified front. As the Communist Party, the largest legal opposition party, denounced The Party for a Free and Democratic Russia (the pro-reform opposition party that was virtually driven underground after the Revolution in 1992) neither party could decide how to proceed with the referendum. The Communists initially called on its supporters to vote “no” on supporting Zhirinovsky before switching gears and calling on supporters to turn in a “blank ballot”. However, the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia made a calculated risk in calling on all of its supporters to boycott the election entirely.
“The belief was that if turnout was low enough, under 30%, that it would create an inflated sign of strength for the Party,” Matlock added, “but they ended up blowing an key opportunity. Nobody was expecting a fair election, most assumed it would be comparable to elections in Iraq or Syria, but to the shock of everyone, including Mikhail Arutyunov, it was a relatively fair election under the circumstances. Had the Communists and the reformists joined forces and come out in force with a “no” campaign, and had they convinced the Chechens to actually vote, Zhirinovsky would have been creamed.”
The final nail in the coffin for the opposition came when, just one week before the election, it was revealed in the American press that the United States was violating UN sanctions by funneling money to the opposition. For the Russian people, the idea of the Americans trying to buy the election was distasteful, but what was even more offensive to them was where the money was going.
“These anti-Zhirinovsky organizers who received millions of dollars weren’t using the money to campaign,” Matlock added, “they were funneling the money into foreign bank accounts and buying goods to sell on the black market. According to the western media nearly one hundred million dollars had been funneled into the opposition in the weeks leading up to the election and less that one million actually went to campaigning. You couldn’t have handed Zhirinovsky a bigger PR victory.”
Zhirinovsky survives referendum, but opposition emboldened as Russians vote to have early election later in the year
By Richard Roundtree
Economist
April 26, 1993
In what the UN has conceded was “a generally fair election”, Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky has survived a no confidence vote by the slimmest of margins. However, the narrow margin of his victory coupled with the clear momentum of opposition groups have given many opposition leaders hope that his reign may come to an end in September. With 99% of the votes counted, Russian voters have given President Vladimir Zhirinovsky the slimmest of victories, as 50.4% voted in support of the controversial Russian President. 49.6% of voters opposed the Russian president. But what was perhaps most telling were the abstentions and low voter turnout. Despite being the first democratic election in modern Russian history, less than 28% of voters showed up to the polls, indicating that over 70% of Russians chose to support the position of the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia and boycott the election entirely. Of those who did vote, nearly 36% of ballots reflected no vote on the Zhirinovsky question at all. Leaders of the Communist Party called on their supporters to vote for the preservation of the UIS while leaving question one (the Zhirinovsky question) “blank.”
Zhirinovsky slim victory was coupled with strong support for the remaining questions on the ballot. Nearly 89% of voters supported remaining part of the UIS while 71% of voters indicated a desire to hold early presidential elections in September, a scenario Zhirinovsky was clearly hoping to avoid. Many observers now wonder if Zhirinovsky can survive a general election later in the year.
“What looks clear is that Zhirinovsky does not have the support he thought he had,” commented German ambassador to Poland Hans Weber, “already the opposition is mounting a concerted effort to unseat him in September, recognizing that the country is fed up with his mismanagement of the economy and his abysmal record on human rights.”
Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has indicated that he will return to Russia and compete in the general elections to be held in September.
“I have spoken to General Alexander Lebed on the telephone this morning,” Arutyunov said in a press release after the results were announced, “and he has assured me that neither I, nor my supporters, will be harassed if we return to Russia to challenge the President in the upcoming election. I am proud of the work that the Russian military has done in these difficult times, and I want to assure the Russian people that I will continue to work closely with General Lebed and the military after September to ensure that we remain a strong and powerful nation.”
In a sign of the growing strenth of the opposition, an anti-Zhirinovsky newspaper published an anti-LDP comic following the election