Russia joins France and the U.S. in forming the international tripod of upcoming, controversial presidential elections. However, while most of the buzz surrounding the French and American elections are linked to intrigue concerning the ground-breaking nature of the individual candidates’ personas (French female presidential candidate Ségolène Royal of the Socialist Party, who is currently unmarried with four children and the American Democrat presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, whose respective race and gender strongly diverge with tradition), the issues surrounding the December 2007 Russian elections continue to revolve around the post-Cold War political reform of a still very illiberal democracy.

Presently, the chances of Russia holding a democratically sound presidential election are threatened by the probable insistence of incumbent President Vladimir Putin running for a third term in office, despite the fact that such an action is unambiguously forbidden by the Russian Constitution. In addition, Mr. Putin is drawing international criticism for his suppression of the April 14^th, 2007 protests in Moscow against the autocratic nature of his rule as well as his suspected manipulation of past election results. According to BBC News, foreign observers have accused Putin of showing overt bias in favor of the nationalist United Russia Party through the use of the state-run media in the 2003-2004 elections, which is believed to have led to the overwhelming victory of that party in the Duma (Russia’s parliament) as well as Putin’s own re-election. In the Duma elections, the United Russia Party won 37% of the vote, placing it a solid 25 points above the runner-up Communist Party. In fact, the victory has been labeled a “regression in the democratization of the country” by The Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe, which had 400 observers monitoring the Russian elections.

Among those arrested in the April 14^th protests was renowned former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, who has dedicated the years following his retirement from professional chess in 2005 towards criticism of Putin’s authoritarian presidency. Kasparov’s immediate concern is Mr. Putin’s very likely decision to run for a third term. “He has the administrative resources to do so,” wrote Mr. Kasparov in the Wall Street Journal “but it would be at the price of his legitimacy—both in the West and at home. I don’t think Putin wants to take such a chance.”

The legislative elections, which have been slated for December 2^nd, 2007, also seem to be taking a turn for the worse. Legislative reforms aimed at strengthening the election process have restricted the number of parties that are eligible to win seats in the Duma, meaning that the votes of many constituents will be ignored. The only provision is that the number of parties represented must constitute 60% of the participating citizens’ vote. In addition, the previous election system, which was a hybrid proportional representation/first-past-the-post process in which independents and minor-parties were able to win seats, has been transformed into one that is based entirely upon proportional representation. Therefore, fewer parties will now gain an inflated number of seats in the Duma, thus further misrepresenting the people’s vote.

Though these reforms indicate a clear regression in Russia’s path to democracy, Mr. Putin claims instead that the recent belt-tightening in the legislative election process signals greater efficiency. It is of no consequence to the Russian president that 40% of the vote now faces the risk of being overlooked; indeed, it is merely a matter of convenience.

When pressured to account for the lacking integrity in Russian democracy, Mr. Putin responds in the defensive, signaling out one of his chief critics, the United States. “Of course, we listen to critical statements, analyze them, take them into consideration and, if necessary, draw conclusions,” Putin said. “But even countries with so-called developed democracies have many problems with democracy, including with the election process.” Putin then took the opportunity to elaborate on the questionable nature of the 2000-2001 U.S. presidential election, concluding triumphantly, if not snidely, “In general, it is useful if we draw attention to one another’s shortcomings.”

Interestingly, Kasparov also points some criticism in our direction and believes that the United States must take a significant part of the blame for the perpetuation of illegitimate Russian elections. According to the chess player turned political critic, the worst thing that could have happened to Russia was for it to be included in the Group of 7 democracies in 1997 to form the G-8. This premature honor seems to have made the Russian government even more confident as it continues to manage unfair elections and suppress dissent.

Unfortunately, Kasparov may have a point. What was supposed to have been an act of encouragement intended to boost Russia’s confidence along the path to democracy, was in the end rendered corrosive by the haste in which it was given. This mistake is not irreversible however. It is up to President Putin to decide whether he wants to justify the consistently retrograde direction that democracy has taken under his lengthy time in office by pointing fingers, or whether he wants to finally recommit Russia to long-delayed democracy. Strangely, for the upcoming elections, this might just mean finally adhering to the constraints of the Russian constitution and not running for a third term. The decision, however, is all Putin’s.