Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations Institute of Social Sciences (Russian Academy of Sciences)

Svetlana Aivazova

RUSSIAN ELECTIONS:

GENDER PROFILE

Moscow – 2008

About the authorAivazova Svetlana Grigoryevna, Doctor of Political Sciences, Leading Researcher, Institute of Sociology (Russian Academy of Sciences).

Authored several publications including the monograph “Russian Women in the Labyrinth of Equality” (M: RIK Rusanova, 1998), numerous articles in line with gender politology and political sociology,ae new tideway in political sciences, also articles on women’s movement history and theory.

Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations and the author express their gratitude to the Moscow Committee of public relations and to the Embassy of Canada for providing financial support to the research and to the publication of this book.

S. Aivazova. Russian Elections: Gender profile. M.: ......., 2008, .... pages.Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations, Moscow, Stolovy Per, 6, office 215, tel. (495) 690-4709, email www.wcons.ru

CONTENTS

PART I. GENDER ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ...................................... 4

INTRODUCTION. Attempt at problem justification ........................................................ 4

CHAPTER 1. History and theory.......................................................................................... 6

1. Historical roots.......................................................................................................... 6

2. Theoretical approaches.............................................................................................. 9

3. Potential strategies of gender-focused institutional changes ................................... 14

4. Gender equality in the context of Russian politics................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2. 2007 parliamentary elections........................................................................ 24

1. Gender analysis of lists of candidates to the State Duma......................................... 24

2. Election programs of political parties: gender component....................................... 46

3. Election results. Gender composition of the Fifth RF State Duma.......................... 56

CHAPTER 3. 2008 presidential elections............................................................................ 61

1. Nomination for participation in the campaign......................................................... 61

2. Candidate programs and statements......................................................................... 64

3. Gender results of the 2007-2008 election cycle....................................................... 82

CHAPTER 4. Voting behavior: gender disparity attributes and sustainability..................................................................... 84

1. Parliamentary elections, 2007.................................................................................. 85

2. Presidential elections, 2008...................................................................................... 92

3. Prospects of eliminating gender disparity................................................................ 98

PART II. WORKING ONE’S WAY UP..............................................................................109

1. Women in top echelons of Russian power (as per results of parliamentary and presidential elections of 2007-2008). Short biographies..........................................................................................................109

Administration of RF President .......................................................................109RF Government................................................................................................111Heads of Russian regions.................................................................................112Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly ............................................112Fifth State Duma of the RF Federal Assembly.................................................116

2. Women in parliaments of the world ....................................................................139

3. Women’s rights and struggle against discrimination: data of international research ......................................................................................................................144

PART I

GENDER ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Introduction. Attempt at problem justification

Russian readers may wonder at the name of this book that links two seemingly unrelated

concepts such as “elections” and “gender profile”. Clearly, elections are a major democratic

institution, but where does “gender profile” and “gender” as such come here? However, the

correlation of these concepts is quite appropriate in the light of modern trends in social sciences.

Recent research helped reveal that gender is a central coordinating social principle, as it creates

various social statuses, allots people their rights and responsibilities and establishes corridors of

social opportunities. Gender as a constitutive element of social relations based on perceived

differences between sexes, permeates all other public institutions – economic, social and

political.

History reads that all institutions – legislation, politics, religion, state and economy – are,

as a rule, gender-hierarchical: initially created by men, they are still dominated by men.

However, history also demonstrates that definitions of “femininity” and “masculinity”, norms

and views based on gender differences and activities considered appropriate for men and for

women change with the situation and with the context. Gender relations may reproduce

domination and subjugation patterns, or else there emerges new gender equality logic typical for

modern times. New rules emerge there and then where and when women enter public and

political spheres previously closed to them. The emergence of new rules is linked to democratic

development, relevant institutions, tools and procedures, including elections Male and female

voting behavior largely predetermines evolving public trends and stable democratic processes.

Newest history displays that the degree of gender equality in the election process – also in each

of its constituent parts, i.e. the active right to vote and the passive right to be elected – is a vivid

indicator of public democratization.

About a decade ago, on the eve of the 1999 and 2000 parliamentary and presidential

elections, we undertook to explore how electoral institutions operate in Russia and whether they

facilitate or impede the integration of gender equality (recognized by the acting RF Constitution)

into national politics. We also wondered to what extent individual men and women of different

4

age and education, rural or urban origin, were involved in the election process; what where their

chances of running for and obtaining deputy’s mandates vs. representatives of the traditional

nomenclature and new dynamic layers – business community or public interest groups, etc.

Research findings were verified during gender analysis of the next, 2003-2004 parliamentary and

presidential elections1. This publication finalizes and generalizes the gender monitoring by

supplementing data from 2007-2008 parliamentary and presidential elections.

In all three parts of the research we tried as much as possible to stick to similar

parameters and to use similar resources: federal lists of candidates nominated by various political

parties; party programs and elections agendas; election programs, speeches and presentations of

presidential contenders; Central Election Commission materials, among them election legislation

and official voting results; public opinion polls conducted by different sociological companies;

biodata of women that obtained seats in parliament, etc.

1 The results of our findings were published in two books: S. Aivazova, G. Kertman. Men and Women in the Elections. Gender Analysis of 1999 and 2000 Election Campaigns in Russia. Moscow, Eslan, 2000; S. Aivazova, G. Kertman. We elect and are elected… Gender analysis of 2003-2004 parliamentary and presidential campaigns in Russia. Moscow, Olita. 2004.

5

CHAPTER 1. History and theory

1. Historical background

On March 19, 1917, the famous Zinaida Gippius wrote in her diary, “It was a spring day,

not just a thaw, but а rapid thawing of the snow. We sat for a couple of hours at the open window

watching a procession of many thousands. Women came first. Countless numbers,

unprecedented processions (never seen in history, I think). Three women riding on horseback

looked very beautiful. Vera Figner was in a lando, with a female ring around her. At the corner,

there was a jam because of troops moving along Potemkinskaya Street. Women shouted

“hooray” to soldiers… Dmitry and me left for the Writers’ Union, then returned, and they were

still moving”.

This is a vivid testimony of the 40-thousand strong women’s mass demonstration.

Women demanded not only “bread” and “return of husbands” from the front, but also

“suffrage” – the right to elect and to be elected to bodies of power of their country, which was

then under renovation. Historical sources testify that contrary to many other events of those

times the women’s demonstration of March 19 was thoroughly planned and well organized. It

gained the support of society, which by that time had already accepted equality slogans due to

persistent and fastidious work of women’s organizations pressing for their implementation for

over a decade.

This story goes back to other revolutionary days – to October 1905, when, under public

pressure Nikolas II issued the Imperial manifesto proclaiming a new constitutional order in

Russia and the convocation of the State Duma – a representative public body. The law and

procedures of Duma elections (published on December 11, 1905) enfranchised only men.

Women were excluded from the category of citizens with political authority. Since that time the

issues of women’s civic equality, the right to elect and to be elected to bodies of power as well as

gender dimensions of the institute of elections have been on the agenda in Russia. They

preoccupied primarily women’s organizations, which actively promoted equality ideas at the

start of the 20th century by resorting to diverse mass actions – meetings, rallies, demonstrations

and petitions to bodies of state power.

One of them, the “Appeal” to the State Duma drafted by the oldest Russian women’s

mutually charitable society on May 3, 1906, was signed by over 5000 women. A. N. Shabanova,

Chair of the society handed the “Appeal” to L. I. Petrazhitsky, a Duma member, a brilliant

lawyer and a proponent of women’s equality. Discussions of the “Appeal” in the Duma resulted

6

in establishing a special Commission that was to draft a law on women’s suffrage. However, the

first State Duma, disbanded soon after establishing the Commission, lacked time to consider the

“women’s” issue. “Ravnopravki” (the name for women’s equality advocates in Russia at the start

of the century) applied to the second State Duma, but it also broke up without even starting

legislative activities. The subsequent First World War served as a catalyst for the February

revolution.

Women’s organizations took an active part in the revolution. Most famous of them were

the Russian women’s mutually charitable society, Union of women’s equality, Women’s

progressive party, Russian women’s equality league, etc. In the pre-revolutionary period and

during the February revolution women activists conducted broad propaganda in nearly all

segments of Russian society – at factories and plants, in political parties and trade unions, among

various State Duma factions and representatives of country councils. These persevering and

longstanding activities allowed the “ravnopravki” to shake revolutionary Petrograd with the

grandiose March 19 manifestation.

The Provisional Government’s declaration of March 3, 1917, on convening a Constituent

Assembly based on “universal, direct, equal and secret ballot” served as an immediate cause of

this manifestation. The Declaration did not say a word about lifting limitations on women’s

suffrage. The next day, on March 4, leaders of largest women’s organizations sent a letter to the

Provisional Government insisting on an amendment into the document to modify this legal norm

in the following way ”universal, direct, equal and secret ballot regardless of sex, religion and

nationality”. The letter was handed to Prince G. E. L’vov, Minister-Chair of the Provisional

Government and G. E. Rodzyanko, Chair of the State Duma, and sent to the Executive

Committee of the Council of workers and soldiers’ deputies. Simultaneously, a special event was

prepared in order to pressurize the authorities; appeals in support of women’s equality were

widely distributed and rallies and meetings conducted. The process involved nearly 90 women’s

organizations led by the Russian women’s equality league and headed by P. N. Shishkina-

Yavein, a noted public person and a doctor.

The event took place two weeks later, on March 19. First, a multi-thousand rally

convened near the City Duma premises. P. N. Shishkina-Yavein said in her speech, ”We have

come here to say that the Constituent Assembly representing only half of the population cannot

in any way express the will of the whole people, only half of it”. After the rally, the participants

formed a huge column and started towards the State Duma demanding for an official response to

the appeal submitted by women’s organizations. The march was held under the slogans “The

women’s place is in the Constituent Assembly!”, “Without women, the suffrage is not

universal!”, “We demand a vote in the Constituent Assembly!” etc. Rally participants

7

represented various segments of the population – factory workers and doctors, hospital nurses

and writers, house cleaners and students, women-telegraphers and medical assistants.

Coming near the State Duma premises, the rally participants demanded that Rodzyanko

came out to them, and promised they would not leave the square until they received a positive

response to their demand. Under the pressure, first Rodzyanko and then Prince L’vov announced

the authorities’ recognition of the legality of women’s demands, and agreed to expand the norm

”universal ballot” for Russian women by including suffrage. They kept the promise. “Official

Regulations about Elections to the Constituent Assembly” adopted by the Provisional

Government on July 20 and enacted on September 11, 1917, stipulated that the Constituent

Assembly be elected by “universal, without distinction to sex, and equal ballot”. Thus, 90 years

ago the February revolution officially recognized women’s equality as a major principle of

Russian politics.

Russian story is typical for the history of women’s suffrage. From the great bourgeois

revolutions to our times, review of traditional gender approaches, as a rule, has coincided with

the upsurge of public movements, mass protests and even revolutionary upheavals. The

algorithm of this process is nearly identical across different countries and different cultures: on

the tide of mass manifestations actively involving women, the latter declare their public interests

and claims at being policy subjects. The feedback to these claims is nearly always negative. Why

so? R. Darendorf, a celebrated thinker of our times, provides the following answer to this

question, ”For a long time Aristotle’s statement that women “by their nature” are not exactly

second-rate people but should still stay at the home hearth, not at the market place of public life,

has dominated state philosophy. The suffrage movement linked suffrage to civic rights, and

finally, after the First World War, won a victory in developed countries. However, the

discrimination that turns women into “second-rate citizens” has persisted until our times. It is

subtle and barely visible, but its impact is obvious. For this reason, demands for positive changes

still remain part of contemporary civil rights movement”2.

Thus, the women’s movement originated from inequality in the civic status emerging

during the bourgeois revolutions. The revolutionary slogan “Liberty, equality, brotherhood” was,

in fact, a laconic expression of demands for a “social contract” that would make all members of

society equal to the law. However, the revolutions denied equality to the poor, to representatives

of non-white ethnic groups and to women. The gap between theoretical justification of the

universal liberal idea relating to a “social contract” and equal civic status of all members of

society, and its practical implementation in the legal system with a series of exceptions from

universal rules, provoked mass public movements – workers’, national liberation and women’s

2 Darendorf R. The modern social conflict. An Essay on the Politics of Liberty. М: ROSSPEN. 2002. P. 52.

8

movements. Each of them in its own way tried to attain universal civil rights for its members, or,

according to R. Darendorf, “a guaranteed civic status as the highest manifestation of life

chances” that included not only equal rights, but also equal opportunities3.

2. Theoretical approaches

Contemporary politics similar to early modern politics still operates mostly by the

principle of women’s exclusion or discrimination thus turning them into second-rate citizens. By

way of evidence, see one figure: as of late April 2008, the average share of women in

parliaments of various countries was about 18% of the total number of MPs. This means that

modern public politics in many respects preserves its “ontological” quality, i.e. it is a “natural”

environment predominantly for men. Men are “political animals” by definition. Women’s

appearance in this environment requires special justification. For ages, women’s domain has

been “church – kitchen – nursery”, sometimes also a factory or a railroad where they lay rails to

help support the family. That is all. Why so? According to some researchers, the political field is

construed in such a way that women are defined as “aliens” or “strangers”. For example, Judith

Butler, a noted American researcher assumes that “the sphere of politics evolves by way of

production and naturalization of “pre- and “non-political… This is the production constituent

externality.. The framework of liberal policies – universality, equality and legal subjects “is built

by way of unmarked race and gender exclusions and by merging politics and public life, where

the private (reproduction, the “feminine” sphere) is seen as pre-political”4.

Carol Pateman, a political scientist and a specialist in liberal citizenship, reflects on the

same idea in a different way. She argues that under liberal citizenship there emerges “separation

between the public and the private … separation of the domain of natural subjects, i.e. women,

from the domain of conventional relationships, i.e. men. The feminine, private world of nature,

particulars, differences, inequality, emotions, love and blood ties is isolated from the public,

universal – and masculine! – reality of conventions, civic equality and freedom, reason,

consensus and contract”5.

This conclusion is supported both by historic evidence and statements from contemporary

politicians. E.g., chronicles of the Great French revolution remind of hot discussions around its

key document – the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” that stated solemnly:

“All men are born and remain free and equal in rights…”. Women were active in major

3 Ibid, P. 534 Butler J. Quoted from Contingent Foundations. // Introduction into Gender Studies. Part II. Kharkiv –S.-Petersburg. Aleteya. 2001. P. 256.5 Pateman C. Feminism and Participatory Democracy. Meeting of the American Philosophical Association. St. Louis. May 1986. P.7.

9

revolutionary events and assumed that for the future they would also become “free and equal in

rights”. Authors of this document, on the contrary, were convinced that the concept “men” (“les

hommes” means both “people” and “men” in French) does not include women. Olympe de

Gouges, a writer, on behalf of women-revolutionaries stated resolutely: “If a woman has the

right to mount the scaffold, she should have the right to mount the podium”6. A. Amar, a

National Assembly delegate, objected just as resolutely: “Political rights of any citizen

presuppose that one can participate in taking decisions related to state interests…Do women

have moral and physical abilities to enjoy such rights? The overall opinion is they cannot. Every

sex should do what is predetermined by nature”7.

Commenting on these chronicles, Joan Scott, an American historian, specially

highlighted the fact that French women’s civic demands had left such an indelible imprint in the

minds of both their contemporaries and researchers of the French revolution that in describing

the event they resorted to nastiest female images, and called its participants “devils incarnate,

Harpys and Medusas”8.

A propos, the famous Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky comments on women’s

initiatives – both in public speeches and in program documents of the Liberal Democratic Party

of Russia (LDPR) that he is leading – in similar words. He openly says, for example, “LDPR

considers women’s excessive and artificial involvement in economy and politics and the leveling

out of differences between male and female social functions as erroneous and harmful. Both men

and women should implement their primordial duties prescribed by nature. Men should perform

the functions of breadwinners, while women should primarily keep the house and sustain the

human race…”9. These are his politest statements on “women and public politics”.

At that, during the two hundred years between the statements by Amar and Zhirinovsky,

the world community in principle recognized the fairness of women’s claims to a full-fledged

civic status and reiterated this recognition in numerous international conventions and

declarations about women’s civil and political rights (over a hundred). The recognition would

have been impossible without a mighty ideological and theoretical contribution by women’s

equality proponents (both male and female), also to political sciences10. In due time, proponents

of Utopian socialism, Marxists and selected liberal thinkers in one way or another contributed to

legitimizing women’s civil subjectness. With time, feminist critique pre se has evolved as a

6 Duhet P. M. Les femmes et la revolution. Paris. 1971. P. 71.7 Cerati M. Le Club des citoyennes republicaines revolutionnaires. Paris. 1966. P. 164.8 Scott, J. Quoted from Gender and the Politics of History. // Introduction into gender studies. Part II. Ibid, P.9519 LDPR program adopted in 2002. “Women and Men” section. For the conceptual meaning of this approach in political discourse of modern Russia see also: Ryabova T. B. Recruitment of gender identity in current Russian political rhetoric. // New directions of political science: gender politology. Institutional politology. Political economy. Social politics. Moscow, RAPN, ROSSPEN. 2007. P.172-173.10 For detailed historical background, see: S. Aivazova. Russian Women in the Labyrinth of Equality. М.:RIК Rusanova. 1998.

10

peculiar system of views around the core idea of civil equality between women and men.

Ideologists of women’s equality considered the destruction of traditional concepts “subject”,

“sex” and “politics” as their main task, and proposed two radical versions thereof. One proceeds

from existentialist feminism taking roots in intellectual findings by Simone de Bouvoir, a French

writer and philosopher. Her book “Second Sex”11 is by right called the Bible of women’s civil

equality. The other proceeds from “essentialism” critically pointed against key principles

proposed by Simone de Bouvoir and her “disciples”.

Simone de Bouvoir justified women’s right to citizenship and to subjectness in history

and in politics, and claimed the lack of direct cause-and-effect links between “male” and

“female” biological differences and male and female social roles built on the principle of

hierarchical collateral subordination, when one human being is a master and the other is his

slave. Such allocation of roles or primary labor distribution is not predetermined “by nature” but

is imposed by certain social and historical conditions. The most famous thesis by Simone de

Bouvoir was “one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman”, by which she argued that

women possessed the same potential and abilities to express their free will and civic attitudes as

men did. The conflict between the primordial ability to be a subject and the imposed role of the

object of alien power determines the peculiar and notorious “women’s lot” that dooms women to

passivity and civic lawlessness.

Luce Irigaray and Helen Sixous, proponents of essentialism and compatriots of Simone

de Bouvoir, openly challenged her approaches. They claimed the existence of women’s peculiar

identity and specific feminine, formulated the concept “right to difference” with men, and

promoted women’s right to subjectness that differed from the male one. Simone de Bouvoir’s

disciples were totally opposed to these arguments; they asserted fundamental resemblance, even

similarity, of human personalities – be it men or women, and for this reason claimed that

women’s identity or “essence” could not exist in principle. In their opinion, to be a woman is not

a mission or a function. Women are able to fulfill their individual potential through labor and

creation.

Advocates of the “right to difference” replied to this critique by emphasizing that prior

history and culture were modeled according to the male vision of the world, male tastes and

preferences, and the world was “masculinized”. Thus, entering the sphere of public politics,

women should oppose male standards and stereotypes by suggesting female values and

fundamental new politics in order to replace the male “fairness ethics” with the female “welfare

ethics”. They were convinced that without stating their specific views on the world, history and

11 The book appeared in France in 1949, and was translated into nearly all languages – from English to Japanese. In Russia, it was published in its full and authentic version nearly half a century later, in 1997. See Bouvoir S. Second Sex. М. : Progress-Aleteya. 1997

11

culture, women were at risk of losing their originality and just vanishing in the “male”

community12.

The debate between “egalitarians” and “essentialists” was not resolved over time and

actually put them on different sides of the barricade. Still, in the last decades of the 20th century

the theory of women’s civic rights movement evolved rapidly despite certain internal variances.

Ideas of Michel Foucault, a noted French philosopher and the author of the “capillary” theory of

power, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, etc, ideologists of post-structuralism,

were embodied in the so-called post-modernist feminism or post-feminism13.

Opponents by right accuse post-feminists of incompleteness, internal antipathy of

intellectual findings and vague concepts; however, they have provided certain conceptual

increment for justification of the gender equality concept. The ideologists of this movement

suggested a new way of linking two concepts – “equality” and “difference” by providing a new

definition of the term “difference”: it is not marginality, an exception from civic culture or a

variation from the norm, but a certain value. In their paradigm, an “alien” (different subjectness)

attains a full-fledged civic status and is recognized the right to full-fledged existence in public

politics. They formulated the thesis of many sides, many colors and diversity of modern political

space that is energized not by one central conflict, not by one and only contradiction – class,

racial or ethnic, but by a variety of conflicts and contradictions that are resolved in a different

way.

The concept of “diverse subjectness” became fundamental for post-feminism. Joan Scott

describes this peculiar approach in the following way,” Modern feminist theories do not

anticipate fixed relationships between essences, but treat them as volatile effects of the time,

cultural or historical specificities, the dynamics of power. …Neither individual nor collective

identities can exist without the Other; there is no inclusion without exclusions, universal –

without rejected particular, neutrality that would not incline to one of viewpoints reflecting

someone’s interests. Power plays a significant role in any human relationships. Differences are a fact

of human being, a power tool, an analysis tool”14.

The recognition of “diverse subjectness” actually blew up the classical liberal perception

of a “universal” public policy subject that in reality turned out to be a “well-to-do white male”.

The feminist critique successfully argued that the history of the subject is the history of his/her

identities15. The diverse subjectness concept led to a completely new understanding of politics,

12 Irigaray L. Le Temps de la Difference. 1989, P.56.13 Among its major representatives are Judith Butler, Rose Braidotti, Monica Vittig, Julia Kristeva, Sheila Benhabib, Nancy Fraser, etc. For detailed analysis of their theoretical findings, see: Voronina O. Feminism and Gender Equality. М.:МCGS.2004; Ushakin S.А. The Gender Field. Vilnius: ЕSU-Moscow: ООО “Variant”. 2007.14 Scott Joan. Quoted from Echos of Feminism. // Gender Studies, KhCGS. 2004. №10. P. 11,25.15 For more detail, see Ch. Muffe. Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics. // Introduction into Gender Studies. Part II. Ibid, P. 216.

12

namely, that it may and should be created not by excluding “aliens” but by including them and

assigning them a civic status and civic participation power. Thus, it challenged the principle of

hierarchical subordination and domination as the only possible one in power relationships, and

expanded the domain for mastering network and non-hierarchal forms of communication.

This approach compelled the feminist critique again address an extremely complicated

problem, namely, the “female” category as a peculiar coherent identity or peculiar collective

“we” that needs representation in public politics. The Russian researcher N. Kukarenko noted in

this respect: “In modern feminist theories the category women turns into a comprehensible area

of differences, and, due to its pluralistic nature, cannot any longer serve as a uniting category.

The resulting feeling is that by decomposing the category of the subject feminists deprive women of a

foundation for collective actions”16.

Ideologists of post-feminism of the late 20th century proposed a way out of this

theoretical stalemate. Their logic in interpreting this category is best pronounced in the works of

Nancy Fraser, a philosopher17. On the one hand, Fraser corroborates that the use of such concepts

as “women’s interests”, “women’s subjectness” or “women’s autonomy” may be seen as a

manifestation of cultural separatism or even reductive biologism. On the other hand she explains

that in practice the “women’s autonomy” idea is used in a specific sense, to be more exact, as a

collective control tool over interpretation and communication means, sufficient for allowing

women to participate equally with men in all social interaction activities, including political

debates and decision-making18.

Chantal Muffe, a politologist, goes further in categorical analysis and convincingly

proves the following fundamental thesis: “Feminism, for me, is the struggle for the equality of

women. But this should not be understood as the struggle for realizing the equality of a definable

empirical group with a common essence and identity, women, but rather as a struggle against the

multiple forms, in which the category woman is constructed in a way that implies

subordination”19. Ch. Muffe rightly assumes that this approach allows for highlighting not the

“natural” but the social character of the category “woman” as a social group whose rights are

systematically violated. Thus, the practical application of this category legitimizes the concept

“women” and supports women’s involvement in and integration into public politics.

16 Kukarenko N. N. Gender Inequality and Subject of Feminist Politics. // New Approaches to Political Sciences. М. ROSSPEN. 2007. P.104.17 Noted civil society theoreticians J. Cohen and A. Arato refer to them in: Civil Society and Political Theory. М. Ves Mir. 2003. P.677-692.18 Fraser N. What's Critical about Critical Theory? Habermas and Gender.// Feminist Critique and Revision of the History of Political Philosophy. М. ROSSPEN. 2005. P.372.19 Mouffe Ch. Ibid. P.232. Feminists Theorize the Political / Edited by Judith Butler & Joan W. Scott, New York: Routledge, 1992, P.382

13

3. Potential strategies of gender-focused institutional changes

Special institutional change strategies aimed at elimination of discrimination and

achievement of not only legal, but also of real women’s equality played a certain role in

legalizing public consent about women’s new roles, including political involvement. Proposed

by women’s movement ideologists and international organizations – the United Nations, the

Council of Europe, etc., they crystallized in the concept “positive” or “affirmative” actions20.

Among them, most logical is the strategy of achieving “parity democracy”.

The strategy bases on theoretical findings that served as a background for such a

significant international instrument related to human rights as the Convention on Elimination of

all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Adopted by UN in 1979, it was the first

to raise the issue of women’s rights as an inalienable part of human rights on the international

level. The Convention, among other measures, obliged all signatory states to include the

principle of equality of men and women into national constitutions and other legal acts, and to

strive for its practical implementation. One of CEDAW recommendations proposed special

measures and procedures (“positive” or “affirmative” actions) for practical leveling of the status

of men and women. In order to achieve women’s real equality in politics CEDAW, among other

things, mentioned special quotas for women in representative or legislative bodies and executive

power structures, among enlisted candidates, in governing bodies of political parties and

movements.

The following package of documents crucial for establishing women’s civil and political

equality came into existence during the preparation for the Fourth World conference on the

status of women that took place in Beijing in September 1995. One of regional preparatory

meetings prior to the Beijing conference (Vienna, October 1994) discussed “parity democracy”.

The Committee on Equality between Men and Women and the Department of Human Rights of

the Council of Europe developed a strategy that incorporated ideas and proposals from women’s

organizations of Western Europe. They demanded that their states and governing bodies of the

European Community adopted practical measures towards achieving women’s equality in power

structures. The main slogan in those times was “parity” and female and male representation in power

structures according to the “50/50” formula.

Authors of the “parity democracy” concept proceeded from three assumptions. First, the

humankind consists of men and women with equal dignity and of equal value. Second,

democracy turns true only when people are perceived for what they are in reality – not abstract

20 For analysis of these strategies, see: Kukarenko N. N., Pospelova O. V., Danilova O. L. Ibid, P.252-272.; Polenina S. V. Gender Equality: problems of equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women. М. Agent Press. 2005; Shvedova N. A. Simple Stories about Complex Issues. Gender education. М.2002.

14

and sexless beings, but men and women, each of whom may be useful for society in one’s own

way. Third, true democracy stipulates for women’s full participation at all levels and in all

spheres of public life on the par with men. These provisions led to the following conclusion: both

genders need representation in governing bodies on the parity basis, with the goal of attaining the

50% to 50% ratio. Parity democracy advocates assume that it will help create a real basis for

sustainable development of the international community. Women will obtain the right to

contribute, equally with men, to public affairs – economy, politics and culture. Men, in their turn,

will become more involved in family affairs and children’s education.

The “parity democracy” strategy was to become a point for discussion at the Beijing

conference, but Conference organizers considered it premature. They had to reckon not only with

the opinion of West European representatives, but also with attitudes of Muslim countries and

the Holy See (Vatican) deeply involved in preparing the Beijing meeting. In Beijing, the gap

between demands of women’s organizations and UN member states from different regions of the

world appeared so big that the organizers had to give up progressive ideas of women’s

movement ideologists.

The Beijing conference replaced the “parity democracy” strategy by other documents –

the “Beijing Declaration” and “The Platform for Action”, which nevertheless called gender

equality the primary vector of international development in the 21st century, and stated the

necessity of women’s involvement in decision-making.

The Beijing conference recommended UN member-states to promote equal

representation of women and men in government, in administrative structures, in court instances,

when necessary – by way of quotas. Recommendations for political parties included

incorporation of gender equality issues in their programs and provision of certain measures

towards women’s participation in governing bodies equally with men. Russia became a signatory

to the Beijing conference documents along with other UN member-states.

Several governments took recommendations of the international community seriously,

and by way of special legislative acts and practical measures attempted to eliminate gender

imbalances and to level out the civic status of men and women in their countries. For instance,

on June 6, 2000, the National Assembly of France adopted the law “On parity between women

and men” called to ensure parity, i.e. absolutely equal – 50/50 – representation of women and

men in all elected positions.

In the early 21st century, gender quotas turned into practical norms of regulating women’s

political involvement in nearly half of UN member states. They became part of party charters,

election legislation or Constitutions of not only European but also Latin American, Asian and

15

African states21. For instance, the Argentinean Law on Quotas, contrary to the French law on

parity, stipulates 30% gender representation and serious sanctions for violation thereof, namely,

the cancellation of candidates’ lists. The election legislation of Kyrgyzstan (“Elections Code”)

contains a similar norm and stipulates relevant sanctions for its violation.

Realistically, one may assert that feminists’ theoretical findings and “affirmative action”

strategies expanded opportunities for women’s political representation. Raising the problem of

women’s status in public politics provoked acute public debates and in a way boosted women’s

“break-through” into formerly closed areas of legislative and executive power. Actual data

provides good evidence to it. For instance, the 1983 parliamentary elections in Great Britain

brought 19 women to the House of Commons, i.e. 3% of the total number of MPs. Similar

elections in 2005 secured to women 19,5% of parliamentary seats (126 from among 646 MPs).

In the USA, in 1980 there were only 19 women – nearly 4% of the total number of members of

the House of Representatives of US Congress. The 2006 elections secured for women 16,8%

seats (73 out of 435 deputies)22, and for the first time in US history a woman became Speaker of

the Congress (Nancy Pelosi, Congresswomen from the Democratic party).

On the eve of March 8, 2008, the European Commission issued the report “Women and

Men in decision-making” focused on the situation with gender equality in top echelons of power

of united Europe. The report reads that nowadays 33% of women hold senior positions in EU

Member States; in 1999, there were 17% of women. During the same period, the number of

women in similar positions in European Commission structures increased from 14 to 20%23.

The current women’s “break-through” into political structures of “old” democratic

countries testifies to the legitimization of and conceptual public agreement to women’s new

roles, including political involvement. Similar processes also take place in countries where

democratic procedures are either under establishment or simulated. In March 2008, Anders

Johnsson, Secretary General of the Interparliamentary Union, presented in his report the so-

called “map” of women in politics. Highlighting that in Nordic countries women traditionally

occupy nearly half of seats in legislatures, he drew attention to the fact that since 2005, the

leadership as far as the number of women in parliament remains with Rwanda. After losing huge

numbers of men to the recent civil war, women now hold 48,8% of seats vs. 47% in Sweden and

41,5% in Finland. In parliaments of Burundi, New Zealand and Tanzania there are also nearly

40% of women24.

21 For more detail see: Stepanova N. M. “Gender quotas as strategies for promoting women to power structures”. Report, All Russian RAPN conference, December 2004 // Women in Russian society. 2004. №3-4. P. 26-32.22 See: Giddens A. Sociology. М.: Editorial URSS. 1999. P. 311, also the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of Europe data as of February 29, 2008: http//www.ipu.org.wmn-e/classif.htm23 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/emplweb/news/news_en.cfm?id=37324 http://www.un.org/russian/news/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=9219

16

Women also compete with men in running for top state positions. In the second half of

the 20th century, in different periods, 76 women in 56 countries held the posts of prime ministers

or presidents. The first decade of the 21st century is especially marked with women’s victories.

Thus, in 2006, women were at the head of 11 states of the world25. At that time, Taria Hallonen

was re-elected as President of Finland, Angela Merkel became Federal Chancellor of Germany,

Michelle Bachelet – President of Chile, Ellen Johnson-Serlif – President of Liberia, Vaire Vike-

Freiberge was President of Latvia, etc. In 2007, there were five women among 71 heads of states

elected to top government positions: Governor-general of Antigua and Barbuda Louise Lake-

Tack, President of Argentina Kristina Kirshner, President of India Pratibha Patil, President of

Switzerland Micheline Calmy-Ray, and Prime-Minister of Ukraine Julia Timoshenko26. In 2007,

Segolene Royal, a socialist, claimed the post of President of France, and in 2008, Hillary

Clinton, a Democrat and former First Lady, struggled for the right to become a Presidential

contender.

4. Gender equality in the context of Russian politics

According to the IPU data as of late April 2008, Russia came 80th by women’s

representation in national parliaments among 188 countries with legislative bodies27. “The

Global Gender Gap” report prepared by analysts of the World Economic Forum in Davos

(WEF)28 pointed out a problem with gender equality in Russian politics. WEF analysts apply

their own criteria to determine gaps in opportunities of men and women in political, social and

economic spheres in 128 countries of the world, and assert that deep gaps are prone with

development crisis and ineffective management. According to the aggregate data, Russia comes

45th in this rating.

25 Among them Bangladesh, Germany. Ireland, Latvia, Liberia, Mozambique, New Zealand, San Tome and Principe, Finland, Chile and Philippines.26 Anthology of “Kommersant” publishing house “First rating of key events and topics in 2007”/ 14 January 2008. P.94-95.27 One should note that the data refers only to women’s representation in the State Duma, i.e. the lower chamber of the RF Federal Assembly, after 2007 elections. There are even less women in the other chamber – the Federation Council: eight women among 169 members, i.e. 4,7%.28 The Global Gender Gap. Report 2007. – World Economic Forum. 2007.

17

Graph 1.

WEF data includes statistics provided by international organizations. The primary

problem for our country is not so much equal opportunities for men and women in the economy

(see the graph), where parameters are much better than in many developed countries, as a well-

pronounced problem of women’s political opportunities and representation in elected bodies of

power. Thus, Russia comes 18th among these countries by the “employment level” index for men

and women; 58th by the “salaries” index for men and women, and 93d by women’s

representation in parliament and 121st by the number of women in the cabinet of ministers.

What is the reason? Why do women remain “aliens” in politics in the country that ninety

years ago was among the first to provide to its female citizens legal guarantees to elect and to be

elected to all power structures? There is no simple answer to this question. One may mention our

country’s peculiar history, specific political culture and political system, problems with legal

substantiation of gender equality, etc.

The 1917 revolutions (first the February, then the October revolution) granted female

citizens full human rights but the social system that emerged on their basis may be called

socialism “with a male profile”. Despite legal provisions, in reality women were treated as

inferior citizens, as “aliens”. Women enjoyed the right to work, but the public opinion

condemned those who embarked on their careers similar to men. They were socially active, but

never dared to speak publicly about limitations of their rights or gender discrimination. They had

the right to representation in power structures, but were allotted quotas only in legislative power

bodies, at that time purely decorative, and were not let into the “sancta sanctorum” of this

power – the governing bodies of the Communist party (the Central Committee and the

Politbureau).

Such solution of the “women’s problem” did not destroy underlying foundations of

traditional political culture. The gender order of the Soviet times may be most correctly qualified

18

as “state paternalism” based on formal gender equality norms. In politics, imitational gender

equality policy brought together women’s marginalization in power structures and their emphatic

public activism.

Women’s low civic potential, weak understanding of human rights, emancipation amid

authoritarian modernization and within certain boundaries set by the state – this historical legacy

determines their current civic and political opportunities. It is notable that in modern Russia even

human rights activists seriously doubt the legitimacy of gender equality issues per se, and

frequently fail to recognize women’s rights as part of human rights. At that, any public debates on

women’s rights rapidly come to maternity and childhood in the spirit of biological reductionism, or else

to the problem of “sex”29.

At the turn of the 80-90s of the 20th century when Russia faced historical uncertainty and

needed to choose development strategies, one could potentially challenge the current gender

order. The declaration of democratic and free market ideals was accompanied by an expanded

discourse of “women’s rights” and gender equality (for instance, in the independent women’s

movement). At the same time, other actors (namely, the clergy) emphatically appealed to

traditional gender values. Public officials and members of several political parties still shared

Soviet approaches to methods of solving the “women’s” problem. Confrontations among these

actors in many respects predetermined inner deep antipathy of modern gender order in Russia.

Clashes of multidirectional gender discourses forced the Russian authorities to select one

of them. At the start of democratic reforms, the formal choice fell on “modern” and institutional

logic. The 1993 RF Constitution (Article 19, p.3) incorporated norms related not only to equal

rights, but also to equal opportunities for men and women.

What dictated this choice? There were at least two diverse factors. On the one hand, the

necessity to join the community of developed and democratically oriented countries and become

recognized as their partner; on the other hand, the need to meet the expectations of certain groups

of Russian citizens – the moving force of ongoing changes, namely, the demand of then active

women’s organizations “From equal rights – to equal opportunities”.

Overtime, it became no longer necessary to consider the above-mentioned factors. The

so-called “zero years” brought stabilization, and, most important, crystallization of Russian

political system that was obviously inclined towards traditionalism. The Russian version of

political traditionalism is characterized by power personalization (even idolization), selection of

political elite not so much by objective parameters but by superiors’ will, nonpublic methods of

29 In this context the name of the book “Sex in Big Politics” (M., 2006) by Irina Khakamada, a famous politician, sounds quite symbolic.

19

solving inter-elite conflicts and, consequently, drastic narrowing of the domain of public

politics30.

These generic properties of traditionalism budding in the Russian political system

became evident during the 2003-2004 parliamentary and presidential elections31. The elections

held amid the “strengthening of Presidential vertical of power” and “elite consolidation”

narrowed the field for open political competition; the value of so-called administrative resources

in the candidates’ “luggage” increased along with persisting value of financial resources.

Regarding gender equality it is important to note that amended rules of the election game

aggravated the “social elevator” problem, i.e. opportunities for new people (namely, for women)

to rise to top power. Such aggravation became possible despite the fact that in 2001, under the

pressure of women’s organizations the law “On Political Parties” (Article 8, p. 4)32 incorporated

provisions about equal opportunities for women’s and men’s political involvement not only as

voters, but also as electives.

Another sign of women’s reduced opportunities in the 2003 elections was the absence

among competing parties and party blocs, for the first time in a decade, of purely female

associations that since 1993 had acted as independent players in the Russian political arena.

What is the reason? One may name a whole variety – institutional, psychological and even

economic33, but the key one was apparently the lack of relevant administrative support. The

authorities considered women’s organizations more or less significant players in the public

domain, but not in the political one. Without government support, women’s association did not

risk to join the election race.

After 2003-2004 electoral cycles, a momentous event related to gender equality occurred

in state policies. Soon after V. Putin’s re-election as President of Russia, he submitted the

composition of the new Cabinet for approval to the RF State Duma. There was not a single

woman on the list. The situation somewhat improved only in 2007, when two women joined

V. Zubkov’s cabinet: T. Golikova became Minister of health care and social development, and

E. Nabiullina – Minster of economic development. As stated in our previous research34, in 2004,

during the administrative reform and reduction of state institutions the following agencies closed

down: the Commission on the status of women that had been under Vice-Premier on social

affairs since 1996, and the Department on children, women and family within the framework of

30 See: Kazantsev А. Inter-Elite Combinations and “Silent Agreement” // Politichesky Zhurnal, №11-12, 2 April, 2007. P.81-83.31 See for more detail: Aivazova S., Kertman G. We elect and are elected…Gender analysis of 2003-2004 parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. M., 2004.32 See Aivazova S., Kertman G. We elect and are elected…Ibid, P. 13.33 See for more detail: Aivazova S. Russian Women in the Labyrinth of Equality. M.: RIK Rusanova, 1998. P. 125-128.34 Aivazova S., Kertman G. We elect and are elected…P. 47.

20

the Ministry of labor and social development. They were the only government institutions that to

some extent addressed gender equality issues. Then followed the dissolution of the Round Table

of women’s organizations under the Ministry of labor and social development that had served as

a channel of interaction between executive power and women’s non-governmental associations.

The election legislation has also undergone significant changes. The newly adopted

federal law “On Election of members of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian

Federation” set new rules of electing MPs. According to the changed election format, the

proportionate election system replaced the majority one, which resulted in cancelling single-seat

voting districts. In addition, legislators abolished the compulsory minimal voter turnout and the

“against all” column in ballot papers; banned electoral blocs and coalitions and introduced a 7%

election threshold for party representation in the State Duma. The main argument in support of

these radical changes was the necessity to stimulate party unification trends and to promote

multi-party system in Russia by building influential political parties able to design well-

substantiated national party programs and work towards their implementation. In legislators’

opinion, these measures could help voters make a more informed and responsible choice when

casting ballots for relevant lists of federal candidates.

During the preparation and discussion of the law on elections, A. Veshnyakov, then Chair

of the Central Election Commission referred to international experience and reiterated the

necessity to add gender equality provisions to the above-mentioned amendments. When the law

was drafted, members of the expert council attached to the State Duma Committee on women,

family and children formulated two amendments that could help level positions of men and

women in the election process. They contained the following gender representation norm,

”The share of candidates of each gender nominated by political parties for enrolment on

candidate lists cannot be less than 30%.

At that, two candidates of the same gender should not follow one after another”.

Most legislators opposed and rejected these amendments. The main argument sounded

symbolic: “You demand that women make 30% on the list. Today they make 10%, which means

that 20% of men shall lose their seats. This is discrimination”. Another argument was “Our

voters do not want women to go into politics. Only feminists support this, and I shall defend my

voters’ opinion”35.

Meanwhile, the opinion poll conducted by the “Levada Center” (a recognized public

survey agency) in April 2005, when the gender amendments were rejected, testified to the

opposite. When asked about the advisability of introducing gender norms into the election

legislation, 60% of respondents supported the idea, while only 28% spoke against it. Thus,

35 Author’s participant observation as part of the group of experts developing these amendments.

21

majority of voters sided with proponents of this idea, but MPs were either unaware of their views

or else misinformed the public.

Anyway, during 2007-2008 parliamentary and presidential elections the Russian

legislation obliged all participants to consider gender equality norms of the RF Constitution (not

specifically formulated but recommended) and the law “On political parties” in nominating

candidates for federal lists and nominating presidential candidates.

On the eve of the elections, in March 2007, several women’s organizations, among them

the Consortium of women’s non-governmental associations and the League of Women-Voters,

reminded candidates about this issue. The RF Public Chamber supported their initiative, and on

February 22, 2007, sent the following appeal to leading political parties:

“Appeal of the Council of RF Public Chamber”

To political parties of Russia!

The year 2007 is the year of parliamentary elections by a new proportionate format. This

electoral procedure considerably increases political parties’ responsibility for the composition of

Russian legislative power.

RF Public Chamber deems its duty to remind that in accordance with the Constitution of

the Russian Federation “men and women possess equal rights and freedoms and equal

opportunities for their realization” (Art. 19, p. 3). In addition, the law “On political parties”

prescribes that men and women should have “equal opportunities for representation …among

enlisted candidates to the parliament” (Art. 8, p. 4). The law “On election of deputies of the State

Duma of RF Federal Assembly” allows for including into candidate lists also non-members of

political parties (Art.7, p. 3). The above creates a legal basis for men and women to enjoy equal

opportunities for participation in elections of all levels both as voters and as electives.

In the previous elections, there were about 10% of women among candidates, and a

similar share of women won seats.

RF Public Chamber calls for women’s full-fledged representation among candidates

and, accordingly, in power structures, in line with the norms of the acting legislation.

RF Public Chamber invites political parties to state their attitudes to the principle of

equality of men and women in party programs.

Balanced representation of men and women in state governing structures guarantees

harmonic and sustainable social and political development of our country”36.

In addition, on June 14, 2007, the Committee on social development of RF Public

Chamber conducted a Round Table on gender equality in the elections for representatives of

political parties and public organizations. Key issues on the agenda were political parties’

36 http://www.oprf.ru/publications/documents/resolutions/2061

22

attitudes to the Public Chamber Appeal and observance of the principle of equal rights and equal

opportunities for men and women in nominating party candidates, etc.

Some observers may consider activities of women’s organizations extremely naive, even

utopian in the specific, probably life-changing environment of 2007-2008 parliamentary and

presidential elections. In the election, the key issue was the departure of the young, able-bodied

and extremely popular president and the transfer of his authority to another person. This may be

true. However, women’s organizations attempted to make gender equality a priority both for the

public and for politicians. They fulfilled their tasks to the extent possible, more so that they were

the only ones to deal with them at that time.

23

CHAPTER 2. 2007 parliamentary elections

1. Gender analysis of lists of candidates

to the State Duma

On September 2, 2007, President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed the decree “On Calling

of the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

of a New Convocation”. By this decree, parliamentary elections were scheduled for December 2,

2007. According to the acting election legislation, political parties became key actors in the

elections, more exactly – the parties that had reregistered their regional chapters in majority of

subjects of the Russian Federation and were not less than 50 thousand in number. In addition, in

order to obtain the right to participate in the election campaign, political parties with factions in

the State Duma of the previous convocation were to draft lists of candidates for election and

submit them for check up of their conformity with the law and for registration to the Central

Election Commission (CEC). The parties not represented in the Fourth State Duma were to

collect additionally voters’ signatures in their support or to leave a substantial monetary deposit

with the Central Election Commission.

14 parties submitted candidate lists to the CEC, 11 parties obtained the right to participate

in the 2007 parliamentary elections, among them (by the parties’ rating in the electoral bulletin

after casting lots) the Agrarian Party of Russia; “Civil Force”; Democratic Party of Russia

(DPR); Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF); Union Of Right Forces (Russ.

abbreviation SPS), Party of Social Justice; Liberal-democratic Party of Russia (LDPR); “Fair

Russia”; “Patriots of Russia”; “United Russia”; and “Yabloko”.

By way of comparison, in the previous 2003 elections 32 parties contested the right to

take part in the elections, and 23 parties succeeded. In the 1999 elections, 139 public associations

including six women’s were potentially ready to join the electoral battle; of them, 26 parties and

electoral blocs including two women’s passed the CEC test. Comparison of this data with the

2007 data reveals evident narrowing of the Russian political environment and washing-out of a

considerable number of players from its flanks.

The 2007 election campaign accelerated this process. One of major intrigues was the

number of parties to overcome successfully the barriers built by the Fourth RF State Duma on

the way to parliament; namely, a higher threshold for entry to the State Duma (from 5 to 7%) and

increased party membership necessary for re-registration purposes (from 10 to 50 thousand), etc.

There were no doubts that “United Russia” dominating in the previous State Duma would

24

successfully overcome these obstacles, but the issue of parties that would share seats with it

remained on the agenda until the very end of the elections. Experts tried to guess whether Dmitry

Medvedev and Sergey Ivanov, then President Putin’s potential successors, would head election

lists of “United Russia” and “Fair Russia” thus building the basis for a two-party system similar

to the USA, and, last, whether democratic parties – SPS and “Yabloko” – would win seats in the

State Duma.

Public opinion companies attempted to answer this set of questions in their own way.

One of forecasts made by VTSIOM (All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research) in late

August 2007 turned rather exact: not two, but four parties – “United Russia”, KPRF, “Fair

Russia” and LDPR – would be able to overcome the 7% barrier in these elections, and would

become election campaign favorites. By this forecast, the “corridor of opportunities” for other

parties’ looked quite narrow: nearly 4% of votes could go to the Union of Right Forces, while

the “Civil Force” could win about 0,7% of votes. Other parties took up positions in between

them.

How did this complicated situation affect women’s chances for nomination as candidates

to the State Duma, and did compilers of party lists consider them a force with certain appeal

among the electorate?

To begin with, in the 1993 elections there were only 7% of women among enlisted

candidates including those on the list of the social and political association “Women of Russia”.

In the next 1995 elections, their share increased to 14%. In the 1999 elections, it was nearly 16%.

In the 2003 elections, it fell to 13%. At that, parties with best chances of passing to the Duma

had even fewer women on their lists – about 10%.

In the 2007 parliamentary elections, the total number of candidates nominated by 11

parties was 4561 (10 candidates per one seat in parliament). Among them, there were 985

women, or 22% of all enlisted candidates37. The lists of parties with best chances of passing to

the RF State Duma in 1992, i.e. “United Russia”, KPRF, LDPR and “Fair Russia” included 339

women, or about 17%.

Obviously, in the 2007 parliamentary elections women’s chances for enrolment on lists

of contenders for the State Duma seats increased as compared to previous parliamentary election

campaigns. What was the reason? One of possible answers is the renewal of the well-known

election formula: the proportionate voting system is more favorable for gender parity38. One may

37 In this book, all calculations related to the 2007 parliamentary elections were made by lists of candidates to deputies submitted to the CEC by political parties for registration thereof. CEC graciously provided these lists to the Consortium of women’s non-governmental associations. Special gratitude goes to Galina Grishina for her assistance in technical procession of these lists.38 There is a variety of research on this issue, among them Lijphart, A. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990 –Oxford: Oxford University Press. – 1994; Linz J., Stepan A. Toward Consolidated Democracies // Journal of Democracy. – 1996. - Vol.7. - N2. - P.14-33; Zimmermen J., Equity

25

also assume that parties modified their positions in order to win additional voters, and in Russia,

women are the most disciplined part thereof. Last, the country’s prestige in the international

arena could be another factor that called for political gender correctness in exercising the passive

suffrage.

Let us analyze, which of the 11 parties demonstrated the highest degree of political

gender correctness and abidance by the law. Judging by the documents submitted to the CEC:

• “United Russia” enlisted 98 women (16%) among 599 candidates;

• “Fair Russia” enlisted 104 women (20%) among 531 candidates;

• KPRF enlisted 89 women (17%) among 513 candidates;

• LDPR enlisted 48 women (14%) among 349 candidates.

Evidently, in the 2007 parliamentary elections “Fair Russia” led the group of parties-

favorites in terms of gender balance of candidate lists.

Still, similar to the previous elections, parties with low chances of winning seats in the

parliament demonstrated the strongest gender sensitivity. The list of the Democratic Party of

Russia was the most advanced in this respect: there were 200 women (37%) among 540

nominees. “Yabloko” and the Party of Social Justice each enlisted 26% of women: 89 women

among 338 candidates, аnd 67 women among 260 candidates accordingly. On the SPS list, there

were 25% of women: 71 among 283 candidates. On the list of the “Civil Force” party – 24% of

women: 60 among 254 candidates. The Agrarian party nominated 20% of women: 93 among 467

candidates. In this group of parties, “Patriots of Russia” enlisted the smallest number of women –

15%, or 66 women among 427 candidates.

Six of 11 parties – election campaign participants – took part in the 2003election race,

among them “United Russia”, KPRF, LDPR, SPS, “Yabloko” and “Motherland” that later

merged with the “Fair Russia”. Four of them – KPRF, LDPR, SPS and “Yabloko” – also took

part in the 1999 election campaign. Thus, it is quite appropriate to compare (at least in

percentage) gender peculiarities of their lists in 2007 and 2003 vs. 1999. The data shows that in

the 2007 elections, practically all these parties increased the share of women among enlisted

candidates 1,5-2 times.

• On “United Russia” lists in 2003 there were 8% of women; in 2007 – 16% of women.

• On KPRF lists in 1999 – 10% of women; in 2003 – 11% of women; in 2007 – 17% of

women.

• On LDPR lists in 1999 – 2,5% of women; in 2003 – nearly 8% of women, in 2007 –

14% of women.

in Representqtion for Women and Minorities // Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities /Ed. by Rule W. and Zimmerman J. - Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. - 1994. - P. 3-14.

26

• On SPS lists in 1999 – 17% of women; in 2003 – nearly 12% of women; in 2007 –

25% of women.

• On “Yabloko” lists in 1999 – 11% of women; in 2003 – 15% of women, in 2007 –

26% of women.

• On lists of the “Homeland” bloc in 2003 – about 9% of women, its successor “Fair

Russia” – 20% of women.

As far as women’s place on these lists, the situation was slightly different. It is common

knowledge that three top or center positions on the federal list, also first and second positions on

regional lists guarantee deputy’s mandates. In the 2007 elections, women were among top three

candidates only in three cases:

• “Fair Russia” put Svetlana Goryacheva second;

• SPS put Marietta Chudakova third;

• the Agrarian party of Russia put Nina Brusnikina second.

By way of comparison, in the 1999 and 2003 elections women were among top three

enlisted persons in seven political parties and blocs.

Quite demonstrative is also women’s representation in first and second positions on

regional party lists.

Table 1. Number of women-candidates nominated by parties in 2000 in first and second positions on regional lists

Name of political party

No of regional

lists

Number of women standing

first on the list

%

Number of women standing

second on the list

%

1 United Russia 83 1 1,2% 13 15,7%

2 KPRF 85 7 8,2% 9 10,6%

3 LDPR 87 8 9,2% 8 9,2%

4 Fair Russia 90 1213,3

%17 18,9%

5 Civil Force 89 1516,9

%24 27,0%

6 SPS 85 1214,1

%21 24,7%

7 Yabloko 98 1818,4

%30 30,6%

8Agrarian party of Russia

92 5 5,4% 17 18,5%

27

Name of political party

No of regional

lists

Number of women standing

first on the list

%

Number of women standing

second on the list

%

9Democratic Party of Russia

99 2323,2

%34 34,3%

10Party of Social Justice

109 3128,4

%19 17,4%

11 Patriots of Russia 87 910,3

%11 12,6%

Obviously, “Fair Russia” created the most favored regime for women’s passing to the RF

State Duma as compared to other parties-favorites: 12 women stood first and 17 women stood

second on its regional lists. LDPR и KPRF nominated twice as few women to similar positions.

At that, parties with least chances of winning in the elections nominated largest numbers of

women to these positions. By this parameter, DPR came first followed by the “Civil Force”,

Party of Social Justice, “Yabloko” and SPS. The Agrarian party and “Patriots of Russia” visibly

lagged behind.

The status of female candidates nominated by “United Russia” was quite peculiar. Nearly

all top seats on “United Russia” regional lists went to so-called “locomotives” – presidents of

republics, governors, mayors, etc. This trend came to its logical conclusion on the eve of

elections: at the YIII congress of the “United Russia” party on October 1-2, 2007 (called “the

first stage” of the congress), President of Russia V. V. Putin announced his consent to head the

“United Russia” list thus becoming the one and only candidate in the federal part of the list.

Table 2. Representation of heads of RF regions and regional capitols among candidates in 2007

(number, percentage of men and women to the total number on the list)

Heads of RF regions and capitol cities (governors, mayors, presidents, etc.)

Totalpers.

Share on the list,%

Among them:men women

United Russia 79 13,2% 78 1

KPRF 0 0,0% 0 0

LDPR 0 0,0% 0 0

Fair Russia 0 0,0% 0 0

Civil Force 0 0,0% 0 0

SPS 0 0,0% 0 0

Yabloko 0 0,0% 0 0

28

Heads of RF regions and capitol cities (governors, mayors, presidents, etc.)

Totalpers.

Share on the list,%

Among them:men women

Agrarian party of Russia 0 0,0% 0 0

Democratic Party of Russia 0 0,0% 0 0

Party of Social Justice 0 0,0% 0 0

Patriots of Russia 0 0,0% 0 0

For reference: all candidatesHeads of RF regions and capitol cities (governors, mayors, presidents, etc.)

Among them:

Among them:

Among them:men women

TOTAL 79 1,7% 78 1

Evidently, “United Russia” was the only one among 11 Russian political parties to apply

mighty administrative resources in the elections. Even “Fair Russia” that positioned itself as

another party of power failed to apply them, and, similar to other participants of the election race

had to do without “locomotives’.

Let us explore this important issue in more detail for further analysis. “Locomotives” is a

peculiar phenomenon of Russian political life. It is not only an administrative resource, but also

sort of an image-making technique. On the one hand, the presence of top officials among party

candidates usually guarantees the most favored regime for the election campaign in a particular

region. On the other hand, more importantly, regional heads and especially President of the

country standing first on the party list signals, which party holds the real power. This is a

“message” to voters most of whom, in the opinion of sociologists, tend to consider elections as a

routine reproduction of the power elite and for this reason support the ruling party39. At that, both

voters and the party headquarters realize that these people will most probably abandon their

mandates soon after the elections, because in the table of ranks of the Russian government

nomenclature the status of the head of the region is much higher than that of the State Duma

member. The ruling party takes into account this factor in compiling candidate lists. Also, on

regional lists not only top three positions but lower ones as well serve as a pass mark. As seen

from our further analysis, this factor directly affected the gender structure of “United Russia”

candidates’ list.

39 Kertman G. L. Traditionalist Re-interpretation of Democratic Institutions in Russian Political Culture. // Institutional politology: modern institutionalism and political transformation of Russia. Ed. S. V. Patrushev M.: ISPRAN. 2006. PP. 438-439.

29

Another reason may be even more significant for gender analysis. Among other things,

the use of “locomotives” in the 2007 parliamentary elections compelled the electorate to divide

participants of the election race into two categories by the principle of polarized distinction, or

the top/ bottom binary opposition. The top means “United Russia”, a monolith party, executive

and legislative power in one, primarily male power, the power of “bosses”. The bottom means all

other parties that do not enjoy the “bosses’” support. This binary opposition is typical for

traditional gender hierarchy “male” and “female”. Evidently, the public opinion marked some

parties as major and first-rate, and “others” as second-rate, more so that “other” second-rate

parties estranged from “administrative” resources actively resorted to women as an additional

resource. The “others” appeal to female resources seemingly encouraged the ruling party to use

them more actively as well. The “contamination effect” well known in politics manifested itself

again.

х х х

Now, let us examine changes in such social and demographic properties of candidates to

deputies as age, place of residence, education, working experience in regional and federal

legislatures and duty posts at the time of joining the election campaign as compared to previous

elections. With this in view, which candidates did political parties prefer in 2007? Do Russian

political parties substantially differ by the above parameters?

Regarding the age of candidates to deputies, do political parties differ in their

preferences, and if yes, in what way? The lists of candidates nominated by 11 political parties

and registered by the Central Election Commission allowed for compiling two tables: one refers

to candidates nominated by parties – favorites of the 2007 election campaign, the other – to

candidates nominated by parties with lower chances of taking seats in the RF State Duma. Let us

compare the two tables starting with the summary data about the age of all candidates in 2007.

Table 3. Gender and age breakdown of candidates in 2007 (total number of candidates – men and women, percent from the number of men and of women)

Total under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and overpers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

TOTALm. 3576 100% 324 9% 652 18% 1029 29% 1117 31% 454 13%w. 985 100% 154 16% 193 20% 249 25% 299 30% 90 9%

4561

The table reveals that the largest group of nominated candidates was men aged from 50 to

59, the next largest – men from 40 to 49, followed by the group of 30 to 39 year old men, then –

30

by men aged 60 and over, the last group being men under 30. The amount of women in either

group never exceeded the amount of men. Among women, the overwhelming number of

candidates was aged 50 to 59, then, moving down, 40 to 49 and 30 to 39. At that, the situation in

age groups “along the edges” – youngest and oldest female candidates – was different from male

groups. The number of young women was 1,5 times bigger than the number of women over 60.

How do these average figures differ across party lists?

Table 4. Gender and age breakdown of candidates nominated by parties – favorites in 2007

(total number of candidates – men and women, percent from the number of men and of women on the list)

Total under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

United Russiam.

501 100%

22 4% 68 14% 135 27% 202 40% 74 15%

w. 98 100%

20 20% 15 15% 18 18% 39 40% 6 6%

KPRFm.

424 100%

18 4% 55 13% 78 18% 183 43% 90 21%

w. 89 100%

7 8% 17 19% 12 13% 39 44% 14 16%

LDPR m.

301 100%

26 9% 110 37% 108 36% 44 15% 13 4%

w. 48 100%

7 15% 16 33% 14 29% 10 21% 1 2%

Fair Russiam.

427 100%

27 6% 82 19% 149 35% 122 29% 47 11%

w. 104 100%

4 4% 13 13% 27 26% 45 43% 15 14%

Judging by this data, the most numerous age group among “United Russia” candidates

was men from 50 to 59 years old, next came men aged 40 to 49 and the “senior” category – 60

and over, followed by younger age groups – from 30 to 39 and those under 30. Among women,

50 to 59 year olds also prevailed. Further results were quite unexpected and different from the

average: on the “United Russia” list, the group of young women under 30 was leading, then

followed groups of 40-49 and 30-39 year olds and a small number of female candidates over 60.

Analyzing the age structure of the “United Russia” list one may call it a roster of elderly men

and young women. Another distinctive feature is nearly perfect gender parity in the youth age

group: among candidates under 30, there were 20 women and 22 men. This result, unique

for all lists, also in the 2003 and 1999 elections, was a major gender innovation identified during

candidate lists’ review.

31

The KPRF list, similar to the 1999 and 2003 elections looked most age-specific, with

domination of men from 50 to 59 and over 60, while young men (under 30) were least numerous.

Female candidates were a little younger: similar to “United Russia”, there prevailed 50-59-years-

olds, followed by women aged 39 and over 60, then came 40 to 49-year-olds followed by young women.

The LDPR list, similar to the 1999 and 2003 elections included mostly young men and

relatively young women, the largest age group included 30 to 40 year old persons.

“Fair Russia” focused on middle-aged men – from 40 to 49, then followed men aged 50

to 59 and 30 to 39. The number of men under 30 on the list was nearly twice as small as that of

men over 60. Among female candidates, there prevailed the age group from 50 to 59, while the

amount of women over 60 was nearly four times as large as young ones. One may say that the

“Fair Russia” party put together a list of worldly wised middle-aged women and men.

Now, let us turn to most typical age and gender preferences of parties with slim chances

of taking seats in the Duma.

Table 5. Gender and age breakdown of candidates nominated by other parties in 2007

(total number of candidates – men and women, percent from the number of men and of women on the list)

Total under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

Civil Forcem.

194 100%

20 10% 62 32% 64 33% 40 21% 8 4%

w. 60100

%16 27% 13 22% 15 25% 14 23% 2 3%

SPSm.

212 100%

20 9% 56 26% 71 33% 52 25% 13 6%

w. 71100

%15 21% 17 24% 19 27% 12 17% 8 11%

Yablokom.

249 100%

37 15% 33 13% 74 30% 71 29% 34 14%

w. 89100

%12 13% 17 19% 23 26% 29 33% 8 9%

Agrarian party of Russia

m.

374 100%

30 8% 27 7% 91 24% 157 42% 69 18%

w. 93100

%9 10% 7 8% 28 30% 34 37% 15 16%

Democratic Party of Russia

m.

340 100%

71 21% 67 20% 97 29% 80 24% 25 7%

w. 200 100%

47 24% 57 29% 58 29% 29 15% 9 5%

Party of Social Justice

m.

193 100%

18 9% 30 16% 65 34% 53 27% 27 14%

w. 67100

%9 13% 7 10% 22 33% 26 39% 3 4%

32

Total under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

Patriots of Russiam.

361 100%

35 10% 62 17% 97 27% 113 31% 54 15%

w. 66100

%8 12% 14 21% 13 20% 22 33% 9 14%

Judging by the “Civil Force“ list, the party lay emphasis on relatively young male

candidates – from 30 to 49 years of age, and on even younger women.

The Union of Right Forces, similar to the 1999 and 2003 elections preferred middle-age

groups of both men and women.

The “Yabloko” party nominated older candidates, primarily groups of men and women

over 50.

The Agrarian party oriented at men and women over 50.

DPR, on the contrary, recruited candidates from among men aged 40-49 and women

under 30.

The Party of Social Justice targeted at older male candidates and younger women, thus

reproducing in general the age-specific approach to candidate selection typical for “United

Russia” in these elections.

The “Patriots of Russia” nominated older men and women.

The conclusions we made after assessing the overall gender and age structure of

candidate lists in the 1999 and 2003 parliamentary elections were as follows40. First, each party

possesses a specific gender and age profile. Second, nearly all political parties prefer to recruit

female candidates from among the group aged 50 to 59. Third, parties are not disposed towards

women from older age groups. Relevant data from the 2007 election campaign corroborated

these conclusions. However, the assumption that political parties were unwilling to work with

young women (under 30) did not prove true in the latest elections. The primary reason was that

prior to the election campaign “United Russia” made a stake at the youth and promised a rapid

public career to many leaders of youth associations, which resulted in visible renewal of the

ruling party candidate list, also at the expense of women. This challenged another conclusion –

that acting parties were not concerned about purposeful education of political cadres from

various public segments and various age groups. Between the 2003 and 2007 parliamentary

elections, some parties seem to have initiated such activities.

Let us verify whether other quantitative indicators related to gender profile of candidate

lists confirm this assumption.

40 Aivazova S, Kertman G. We elect and are elected… P.18.

33

The next indicator is the geographic breakdown of regions for recruitment of candidates

to the Russian parliament. As seen in the previous elections, it helps understand how extended

party networks are and whether they cover only big cities or small towns and even villages.

Let us turn to typical ways of recruiting the candidates’ corps.

Table 6. Breakdown by domicile of candidates nominated by all parties in 2007

(total number of candidates – men and women, percent from the number of men and of women)

Total MoscowS.-

PetersburgRegional centers

Small towns

Settlements, villages

pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

TOTAL

m. 3573100% 579 16% 91 3% 1767 49% 681 19% 455 13%

w. 985100% 138 14% 36 4% 531 54% 184 19% 96 10%

4558

Evidently, most candidates to the Russian parliament came not from capitals but from

regional centers and small towns, followed by Moscow and settlements and villages. S.-

Petersburg as the source of legislative human power comes last. At that, in percentage, regional

centers nominate even more women than men.

What did the lists of parties-favorites of the 2007 election campaign look like as far as

this parameter?

Table 7. Breakdown by domicile of candidates nominated by parties-favorites in 2007 (number of candidates – men and women,

percent from the number of men and of women in the list)

MoscowS.-

PetersburgRegional centers

Small townsSettlements,

villagespers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

United Russiam. 147 29% 19 4% 229 46% 68 14% 38 8%w. 21 21% 5 5% 57 58% 9 9% 6 6%

KPRFm. 82 19% 7 2% 180 42% 106 25% 49 12%w. 5 6% 0 0% 36 40% 35 39% 13 15%

LDPRm. 45 15% 7 2% 137 46% 81 27% 29 10%w. 10 21% 2 4% 20 42% 12 25% 4 8%

Fair Russiam. 96 22% 17 4% 216 51% 61 14% 37 9%w. 18 17% 9 9% 55 53% 14 13% 8 8%

34

“United Russia” selected most men and women in regional centers that became the

primary source of human power for the ruling party. However, a solid group of candidates comes

from Moscow (among them – deputies of past convocations who represented remote parts of

Russia in the previous elections but later took root in Moscow and became Moscow residents).

The second largest group included candidates from small towns, settlements and villages, while

S.-Petersburg came last by this parameter similar to the whole candidates’ corps.

KPRF in selecting candidates also focused primarily on regional centers, then on small

towns, settlements and villages, next on Москву and last – on S.-Petersburg. At that, KPRF

female candidates come mostly from regional centers and small towns.

LDPR also selected most candidates in regional centers and small towns, but was more

than KPRF oriented at Moscow and less – at settlements and villages

“Fair Russia” more than other parties was oriented at Moscow and less – at settlements

and villages.

The most significant conclusion after analyzing this data vs. The data from previous

elections was as follows: majority of female candidates from “United Russia” and KPRF come

from remote areas of Russia, small towns and villages. In the 2003 elections “United Russia”

nominated only one woman; KPRF – 14 women. In the 2007 elections “United Russia” enlisted

15 women from these groups; KPRF – 48 women. This data corroborates the fact that in the

period between 2003 and 2007 both parties significantly developed and strengthened their

country networks.

How typical is this trend for other Russian parties?

Table 8. Breakdown by domicile of candidates nominated by other parties in 2007

(number of persons – men and women, percent from the number of men and of women on the list)

MoscowS.-

PetersburgRegional centers

Small townsSettlements,

villagespers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

Civil Forcem. 27 14% 2 1% 113 58% 32 16% 20 10%w. 8 13% 3 5% 43 72% 4 7% 2 3%

SPSm. 31 15% 2 1% 125 59% 39 18% 15 7%w. 11 15% 2 3% 39 55% 12 17% 7 10%

Yablokow. 22 9% 11 4% 128 51% 75 30% 13 5%w. 9 10% 3 3% 44 49% 32 36% 1 1%

35

MoscowS.-

PetersburgRegional centers

Small townsSettlements,

villagespers. % pers. % pers. % pers. % pers. %

Agrarian party of Russia

m. 30 8% 8 2% 124 33% 55 15% 157 42%w. 6 6% 1 1% 34 37% 21 23% 31 33%

Democratic Party of Russia

m. 23 7% 4 1% 222 65% 55 16% 36 11%w. 18 9% 11 6% 142 71% 18 9% 11 6%

Party of Social Justicem. 40 21% 9 5% 100 52% 30 16% 13 7%w. 26 39% 0 0% 25 37% 10 15% 6 9%

Patriots of Russiam. 36 10% 5 1% 193 53% 79 22% 48 13%w. 6 9% 0 0% 36 55% 17 26% 7 11%

The table reveals that in the 2007 elections, SPS and “Yabloko” increased the number of

enlisted female candidates from small towns, settlements and villages. In the 2003 elections, five

women on the SPS list came from small towns and settlements, in 2007 – 19 women. With the

“Yabloko” party, there were five and 33 accordingly.

The Party of Social Justice was definitely the most “metropolitan” in this group, and the

Agrarian party of Russia – the most “rural”.

Obviously, Russian political parties more frequently focus on remote Russian areas in

selecting candidates. How does this affect the quality of the selection? Such a significant

parameter as candidates’ educational level allows for making tentative conclusions.

As a reminder, in the 2003 parliamentary elections most candidates to deputies both at

the federal level and in single-seat voting districts had university education. “United Russia”

candidates, especially women, were best educated. Least educated were LDPR candidates,

especially men running in single-seat districts. There was quiet a number of men without

university education on federal lists of the “Motherland’ bloc and SPS. In 2003 vs. 1999, the

total amount of persons without university education among enlisted candidates was higher. The

same, though to a lesser degree refers to female candidates: in 1999, there were 52 persons

without university education, in 2003 – 63. In 1999, there were three female candidates with

secondary education, in 2003 – nine. Thus, we surmised that men without university education in

principle have more opportunities for political promotion than women do. However, university

education is a significant factor for women’s political career. Did this conclusion prove true in

2007?

Let us turn to averaged parameters of the whole candidates’ corps.

36

Table 9. Level of education of candidates in 2007 (number of people)

University education

Incomplete university, secondary,

special secondary education

No secondary education

men women men women men women

TOTAL 3238 820 291 127 47 38

Thus, in 2007, the majority of candidates had university education. At that, as compared

with previous election campaigns, in 2007 the number of candidates without university

education – both men and women – evidently increased. 418 candidates, among them 127 (12%)

women and 291 (8%) men had incomplete university education, secondary or special secondary

education. In addition, a new category of candidates to deputies emerged – without secondary

education. This group included 85 (1, 9%) candidates, among them – 38 (3,8%) women and 47

(1,3%) men with elementary, basic professional or even pre-school education. One may attribute

this new parameter, not recorded in previous Russian elections, to the expanded “geographic

scope” of recruitment.

Let us clarify the preferences of parties – favorites of the 2007 election campaign by this

parameter.

Table 10. Level of education of candidates nominated by parties-favorites in 2007 (number of people)

University education

Incomplete university, secondary,

special secondary education

No secondary education

men women men women men women

United Russia 489 96 12 2 0 0

KPRF 394 77 26 10 4 2

LDPR 261 35 39 12 1 1

Fair Russia 410 96 15 6 2 2

The data testifies that “United Russia” with a rare exception (14 candidates out of 599)

preferred to select candidates from among persons with university education, and did not include

those without secondary education. The list corroborated our earlier conclusion that university

education is a necessary resource for women determined to make a serious political career.

37

On the KPRF list, as compared to 2003, the number of men without university education

increased twice, and the number of women – thrice. Among candidates without secondary

education, the number of men twice exceeded the number of women. As for candidates without

secondary education, the KPRF enlisted 42 people and thus stood out among other parties –

favorites of the 2007 election campaign

LDPR was a traditional leader regarding the number of persons – both men and to a

much lesser degree women – without university education, though it enlisted three times fewer

persons without secondary education than KPRF. Liberal-democratic candidates without

university education made a group of 53 persons.

Only 25 “Fair Russia” candidates belonged to a similar group, but there were several

persons without secondary education – in an equal gender proportion of two men vs. two

women.

Let us analyze differences by this parameter among other parties – members of the

election campaign.

Table 11. Level of education of candidates nominated by other parties in 2007 (number of perspns)

University education

Incomplete university, secondary,

special secondary education

No secondary education

men women men women men women

Civil Force 179 57 13 3 2 0

SPS 194 62 16 9 2 0

Yabloko 214 74 30 12 5 3

Agrarian party of Russia 333 69 36 22 5 2

Democratic Party of Russia 265 148 53 26 22 26

Party of Social Justice 178 56 13 10 2 1

Patriots of Russia 321 50 38 15 2 1

Evidently, “Civil Force” candidates were best educated, and the party positioned itself in

the elections as the party of intelligentsia. The educational level of candidates from SPS and the

Party of Social Justice was practically similar to “Civil Force”. On the “Yabloko” list, there was

a considerable number of candidates, primarily men, without university and even secondary

38

education, but “agrarian” candidates outnumbered them. DPR candidates – both men and women

- were least educated. One of enlisted candidates did not have any education (№3 in regional

group №18 (Republic of Tatarstan) – Naverezhnochelninskaya, born in 1958, Director-General

of “Show Design” Open Stock Company).

Comparison of the two tables again corroborates our previous conclusion that the

educational level is a significant resource for political careers of both men and women. At that, it

is evident that men without university education have better chances of political promotion than

women do.

The analysis of 1999 and 2003 candidate lists revealed that another major resource for

enrolment was the status of member of the RF State Duma or regional legislatures of previous

convocations. How true was this in the 2007 elections?

Let us look at relevant data across the whole candidates’ corps in the latest elections.

Table 12. Prior legislative experience of candidates nominated in 2007(amount, percent from the number of men and of women on the list)

Deputies of RF State Duma Deputies of regional legislaturesmen women men women

persons % persons % persons % persons %

TOTAL 275 7,7% 34 3,5% 428 12,0% 75 7,6%

Evidently, few men and an insignificant number of women among all candidates

possessed the State Duma experience. The number of candidates – men and women, starting the

election race as members of regional legislatures was nearly twice as big. Does it mean that in

2007 all political parties headed for renovating their representatives’ corps in the State Duma? In

addition, how did various party structures treat this parameter?

Table 13. Prior legislative experience of candidates nominated by parties-favorites in 2007

(amount, percent from the number of men and of women on the list)

Deputies of RF State Duma Deputies of regional legislaturesmen women men women

persons % persins % persons % persons %UNITED RUSSIA

171 34,1% 20 20,4% 81 16,2% 18 18,4%

KPRF 35 8,3% 5 5,6% 96 22,6% 14 15,7%

LDPR 25 8,3% 2 4,2% 48 15,9% 6 12,5%

FAIR RUSSIA 27 6,3% 6 5,8% 101 23,7% 25 24,0%

39

The data reveals significant differences in parties’ selection criteria by this parameter.

Among nominees of “United Russia” – the party with best chances of winning the elections –

over half of male candidates and a smaller share of female candidates were former members of

the RF State Duma or regional legislatures. Among male candidates, the number of former

Duma members was twice as big as the number of former regional legislators, while among

female candidates the amount of the former and the latter was nearly similar.

Nearly one third of KPRF male candidates and over one-fifth of female candidates had

prior legislative experience either at the federal or at the regional level. Still, contrary to “United

Russia”, there were three times more regional legislators – both men and women – than national

legislators.

On the LDPR list, the share of former federal and regional legislators was approximately

similar to KPRF.

The “Fair Russia” list comprised four times more regional legislators than members of

the RF State Duma.

In other words, “United Russia” was confident of its success, did not deem necessary to

renew the list seriously, and counted on former parliamentarians’ experience. Other parties in

this group seemingly intended to win voters by other methods, namely, by relying upon the

authority of candidates well known in relevant regions.

What did other parties count on?

Table 14. Prior legislative experience of candidates nominated by other parties in 2007

(amount, percent from the number of men and of women in the list)

Deputies of RF State Duma Deputies of regional legislaturesmen women men women

persons % persons % persons % persons %

Civil Force 1 0,5% 0 0,0% 4 2,1% 0 0,0%

SPS 3 1,4% 0 0,0% 35 16,5% 4 5,6%

Yabloko 1 0,4% 0 0,0% 10 4,0% 1 1,1%

Agrarian party of Russia

2 0,5% 0 0,0% 30 8,0% 3 3,2%

Democratic Party of Russia

0 0,0% 0 0,0% 3 0,9% 0 0,0%

Party of Social Justice

0 0,0% 0 0,0% 2 1,0% 1 1,5%

Patriots of Russia 10 2,8% 1 1,5% 18 5,0% 3 4,5%

40

In this group of parties, SPS and “Patriots of Russia” nominated largest numbers of

former legislators (nearly 18% of male candidates and 6% of female candidates, and nearly 8%

of male candidates and 6% of female candidates respectively). At that, “Patriots of Russia”

nominated many more former deputies of the RF State Duma than SPS. Several regional

deputies joined the list of the Agrarian party. “Yabloko”, “Civil Force” and DPR found

practically no candidates in this social setting. Why so? Whether legislators refused to reckon on

these parties, or whether the parties did not recruit candidates from among them, remained an

open issue for us.

However, it is clear that parties-favorites of the election campaign still consider

candidates’ legislative experience a major success factor in the elections.

Let us move further and try to identify other reserves that political actors had in stock in

the latest elections. Namely, representation of a mighty and dynamic group of business people

and the directors’ corps among enlisted candidates needs further analysis.

Similar to the above, let us assess the position of this group in the corps of candidates in

2007.

Table 15. Business and directorship representation in 2007

Heads, deputy heads of joint-stock, state and private companies (industry and agriculture,

commerce, finance)Total

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

TOTAL 998 21,9% 889 109

The data testifies that businesspersons make quite a considerable share among enlisted

candidates, which had grown since the previous elections regarding both men and, most

obviously, women. In 1999, there were 10 women in this part of the list, in 2003 – 14 women, in

2007 – 109 women. Which parties made a special stake at business elite?

Table 16. Business and directorship representation among candidates from parties-favorites in 2007

(amount, percent of the total number of men and women in the list)

Heads, deputy heads of joint-stock, state and private companies (industry and agriculture,

commerce, finance)Total

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

UNITED RUSSIA 62 10,4% 57 5

KPRF 63 12,3% 59 4

41

Heads, deputy heads of joint-stock, state and private companies (industry and agriculture,

commerce, finance)Total

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

LDPR 87 24,9% 79 8

FAIR RUSSIA 164 30,9% 142 22

Obviously, businesspersons were not too significant for “United Russia” in terms of

candidate recruitment. Their number was a sequence lower than the number of representatives of

executive and legislative power of the federal and regional levels. KPRF, too, did not focus

much on determining candidates in this segment of the population, while one fourth of LDPR

candidates represented business community. On the “Fair Russia” list they were even more

numerous – about one third, which is quite unexpected for a party positioning itself as a leftist

and a socialist party.

How did other players in the 2007 election campaign consider this public segment?

Table 17. Business and directorship representation among candidates from other parties in 2007

(amount, percent of the total number of men and women in the list)

Heads, deputy heads of joint-stock, state and private companies (industry and agriculture,

commerce, finance)Total

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

Civil Force 102 40,2% 88 14

SPS 71 25,1% 62 9

Yabloko 58 17,2% 48 10

Agrarian party of Russia 170 36,4% 158 12

Democratic Party of Russia 41 7,6% 35 6

Party of Social Justice 79 30,4% 67 12

Patriots of Russia 101 23,7% 94 7

The lists prepared by the Agrarian party and the “Civil Force” contained the largest

number of businesspersons. “Patriots of Russia” allotted to them nearly one fourth of the list.

The Party of Social Justice and SPS were also strongly disposed towards this group, though as

42

compared to the 2003 elections, the share thereof on the SPS list dropped nearly twice. The same

refers to the amount of businesspersons on the “Yabloko” list. DPR nominated the smallest

number of businesspersons.

Now, let us consider positions of enlisted representatives of public organizations that

many experts identify with civic society.

Table 18. Representation of public organizations among candidates in 2007

(amount, percent of the total number of men and women in the list)

Heads, deputy heads of federal and regional non-profit organizations, trade unions, parties, public

movementsTotal

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

TOTAL 252 5,5% 180 72

One needs to note that in 2007, the share of representatives of public organizations

among candidates to deputies was four times smaller than that of business community

candidates. At that, the share of women in the total number of representatives of public

organizations was considerably higher than among business representatives. We first noted this

evident disparity between men and women in this segment of the Russian society in analyzing

lists of nominees in the 1999 parliamentary elections. Data from the 2003 parliamentary

elections confirmed this trend, and in 2007 the trend again manifested itself. Our explanation

also remains true. The main reason is that women’s access to business remains much more

difficult than to the “third sector”, where, for many reasons, women’s public activity manifest

itself stronger than in other social spheres. Let us analyze how parties-favorites of the 2007

election campaign treated this public segment.

Table 19. Representation of public organizations among candidates from parties-favorites in 2007

(amount, percent of the total number of men and women in the list)

Heads, deputy heads of federal and regional non-profit organizations, trade unions, parties, public

movementsTotal

personsShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

UNITED RUSSIA 25 4,2% 22 3

KPRF 29 5,7% 23 6

LDPR 10 2,9% 9 1

FAIR RUSSIA 42 7,9% 32 10

43

Similar to the previous elections, LDPR was least interested in selecting candidates from

the third sector, and the ruling “United Russia” party sided with it. KPRF was slightly better

disposed towards public organizations, while “Fair Russia” was best disposed; it allotted one

fourth of seats to women-candidates from public organizations.

How were other participants of the elections campaign disposed towards this group?

Table 20. Representation of public organizations among candidates from other parties in 2007

(amount, percent of the total number of men and women in the list)

Heads, deputy heads of federal and regional non-profit organizations, trade unions, parties, public

movementsTotal

peopleShare in the list,%

Among them, persons:men women

Civil Force 8 3,1% 7 1

SPS 20 7,1% 12 8

Yabloko 25 7,4% 18 7

Agrarian party of Russia 45 9,6% 26 19

Democratic Party of Russia 5 0,9% 4 1

Party of Social Justice 29 11,2% 14 15

Patriots of Russia 14 3,3% 13 1

The share of representatives of public organizations was highest among nominees of the

Party of Social Justice and the Agrarian party, the lowest – among nominees of the Democratic

party of Russia, “Civil Force” and “Patriots of Russia”. SPS and “Yabloko” displayed moderate

interest to them.

One needs to recognize that in the 2007 elections political parties were less interested in

recruiting candidates from among heads of public organizations than in the 1999 and 2003

elections. It is noteworthy that the share of women among candidates remained practically

unchanged. Back in 1999, across all federal lists of parties-favorites, 220 candidates including 31

women were heads or deputy heads of public organizations. In 2003, same party lists comprised

122 persons, among them 19 women. In 2007, parties-favorites of the election campaign enrolled

106 candidates from this segment, among them 20 women.

Thus, another trend of the 1999 and 2003 election campaigns proved to be true: we

alerted our readers that with each election the number of “third sector” representatives among

44

enlisted candidates to the RF State Duma goes down. This is quite a disturbing trend, as people

from this social setting – the civic society under formation – are better able to express

consolidated interests of broad segments of the population due to their public experience,

sensitivity towards social problems, greater competence in this sphere and obligations to the

“third sector”.

х х х

Have Russian political parties during the last decade grown to consider gender parity

aspects in nominating candidates for parliamentary elections? In addition, which women groups

were their primary targets? Analysis of enlisted candidates to the Third (1999), Fourth (2003)

and Fifth (2007) RF State Dumas demonstrated that the share of women among all candidates

increased, though slightly, with each election campaign. At that, parties-favorites of elections

campaigns and those with slim chances of winning in the elections approached women’s

nomination differently, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Parties-favorites were less worried

about the constitutional norm of gender equality and the law “Оn political parties” stipulating

equal opportunities for men and women for nomination as candidates in the elections. “Outsider”

parties worked more actively with women and enrolled them on their election lists, with the

exception of nationalistic and chauvinist parties.

Parties-favorites displayed more interest to high-status women with either solid power

resources (deputy’s mandates and work experience in top positions of executive power) or else

renown in sports, art or show business. Thus, in 2007, “United Russia” ostensibly motivated by

the campaign for the upcoming Sochi Olympics made a special stake at sportswomen. The list of

nominees included Svetlana Zhurova, a skater, Alina Kabaeva and Svetlana Khorkina, gymnasts,

Svetlana Ishmuratova, a biathlete, and Evgenia Medvedeva, a skier. “Fair Russia” was more

disposed towards people of arts, and nominated Rimma Markova, an actress, Edita Piekha and

Olga Voronets, singers, also Elena Berezhnaya, a figure skater.

“Outsider” parties also targeted at similar “image resources”, but focused more on heads

and activists of public organizations and representatives of non-status groups, which accounts for

enlisting women without university or even secondary education, residents of small towns and

settlements.

Despite evidently different approaches to selecting female candidates, one feature was in

common for all political actors without any exception: they provided different chances to men

and to women to launch political careers by way of winning deputy’s mandates.

Gender inequality of the election process in many ways mirrored inequality between men

and women in all other spheres of Russian public life, resulting primarily from their unequal

45

material and financial resources. This is not by accident that the “Kommersant-Vlast” weekly41

in describing distinctive features of candidates to deputies in the 2007 election campaign

identified only one woman among 10 candidates with highest incomes – Marina Valerievna

Ignatova, “United Russia” candidate No.8; only one woman among candidates with biggest

country mansions – Ludmila Shturmovna Dunaiskaya, Agrarian party candidate No.5, while

another woman – Zoya Mikhailovna Stepanova, “United Russia” nominee, came third among

candidates with biggest garages. As for candidates with largest bank deposits, plots of land or

housing space, female names were absent from relevant rosters.

Still, what lies behind the emerging trend towards women’s increased enrolment on

candidate lists – a mere accident, forced political correctness or deliberate concern of political

parties about gender inequality that in one or another way needed to be reflected in pre-election

documents – programs, manifests and declarations?

2. Election programs of political parties:

gender component

Election agendas and programs of political parties in general serve as an instrument for

dialogue and communication with the electorate. Modern political parties are, as a rule, gender

oriented. Their programs include special chapters with an overview of women’s status and role

in public life and proposals related to elimination of gender discrimination, women’s integration

into politics and, more specifically, into the election process. In 1990s, programs of Russian

political parties were gender neutral. At that time, the democratic public considered women’s

equality a part of former socialist ideology;t due to this prejudice it was ostensibly doomed to

oblivion. At the turn of the millennium, a very careful vaccination of gender components to party

ideological documents started, primarily under the pressure of women’s organizations and party

activists.

Members of independent women’s associations formed in the early 1990s at once

planned a “breakthrough” into politics and tried to substantiate it ideologically. This issue,

among others, was on the agenda of the First and Second Independent Women’s forums in the

town of Dubna (Moscow Region) in 1991 and 1992, and the Conference “Women of Russia:

from discrimination to equal opportunities” held by the Women’s Union of Russia in late 1992.

The final resolution of the conference called upon “proto-parliamentary parties, first, to

concentrate on “ensuring equal opportunities for women’s participation in politics”, second, to

consider the equal opportunities issue in drafting party documents for next parliamentary

41 “Kommersant-Vlast”. November 5, 2007. PP.18-19.

46

elections”42. The resolution was sent to all 40 political parties registered at that time in Russia,

and all of them disregarded the message. Experts’ analysis of party documents of those times

“left an impression that parties were vaccinated against equality and equal rights – basic

democratic values… Any intention to resolve women’s problems is absent from party

programs... They do not recognize this problem at the political level and thus do not raise it”43.

In the fall of 1993, on the eve of elections to the First RF State Duma, political parties’

gender immunity urged influential women’s organizations to launch the women’s political

movement “Women of Russia”44. With it, in December 1993, for the first time in our history

women’s organizations went to elections as an independent force – and succeeded. They won 8,

13% of votes and an opportunity to form a State Duma faction. The “Women of Russia”

parliamentary faction in the State Duma had in store a contradictory program that intertwined

fancily protectionist concepts of defending motherhood and childhood and modernist promises

of gender equality in Russia.

Several years later “Women of Russia” suffered a defeat in the 1995 parliamentary

elections and split into two streams, one of which – the “Women of Russia” movement headed

by E. Lakhova sided with the newly born “Homeland-All Russia” party in the 1999 elections.

Then, these promises became part of the “Homeland to women” program – the first gender

oriented program moved by a Russian political party on the eve of parliamentary elections and

targeted at winning over Russian female voters.

The program was drafted in the summer of 1999 and adopted at the special Women’s

Forum of the “Homeland – All Russia” party in Ivanovo (July 1999). In this document, the

Russian women’s status was defined in terms “discrimination”, “gender disparity” and “gender

asymmetry”. The program also proposed practical legislative measures for leveling out male and

female social status and ensuring their parity representation in power structures. By publishing

and adopting this document jointly with several national women’s organizations, the

“Homeland – All Russia” party initiated a new type of interaction, a “dialogue”, with the female

electorate. Still, the newly started dialogue was impossible to sustain. Prior to the 1999

parliamentary elections “Homeland” initiated an electoral bloc with the “All Russia” association

and in the course of negotiations had to drop these innovations. However, the emergence of a

Russian political party program with a gender component set a precedent.

Another political force – the LDPR party – immediately reacted to this precedent. On the

eve of 1999 parliamentary elections, it also included a special chapter “Women and LDPR” into

42 Final document of the Conference “Women of Russia: from discrimination to the society of equal opportunities” of October 2, 1992.43 Zavadskaya L. N. Russian Realities; Gender Equality Problems. // Women’s integration into public development process. Moscow. 1994. P.403.44 See: Aivazova S. Russian Women in the Labyrinth of Equality. M.: RIK Rusanova, 1998. P.123-127.

47

its program, stating “LDPR stands for women’s equality, their improved material and social

status”. At that, the program clarified that “…struggling for the happy life of the fair half of the

Russian nation, LDPR categorically rejects feminism as an extreme political movement that

inflames gender antagonism and strives for the normative securing of women’s leading functions

in society”. With this regard, the LDPR program of 1999 may be qualified as a sample

demagogic protection of patriarchal political culture from advancing gender equality concepts.

Still, including gender equality into this document was quite significant, as it unwillingly

demonstrated its gradual actualization in the Russian society.

Pre-election program documents of other influential participants of the 1999

parliamentary campaign – KPRF, the Interregional “Unity” movement (“Yedinstvo”), SPS and

“Yabloko” remained gender neutral.

By the next 2003-2004 parliamentary and presidential elections the situation began to

change. Struggle for voters, criticism from the part of women’s organizations and party activists,

and, finally, the new law “Оn political parties” adopted in 2001 and containing a

recommendation about equal opportunities for participation of women and men in the election

process (Article 8, part 4) – all these different factors gradually encouraged Russian political

parties to recognize gender equality ideas.

Several parties responded to the law “Оn political parties” by introducing the legal norm

contained in Article 8, part 4, into their programs, among them “Yabloko”, the People’s party,

the Party of Russian regions that became an integral part of the “Homeland” bloc, and the Party

of Life. Actually, these parties as political subjects took upon themselves concrete obligations to

ensure gender parity both in governing structures of party organizations and among enlisted

candidates to legislatures of various levels.

Programmatic assimilation of gender equality ideas also continued. Thus, “United

Russia” – successor to “Unity” and “Homeland” – drafted for the 2003 elections a special

program document “For equal rights and equal opportunities for women and men. Program

principles”. It was authored by the “Women of Russia” movement that acted in these elections as

the party's main ally, or, by party terminology, “a party proponent”. The document analyzed

basic problems faced by Russian women in public life – alienation from major decision-making,

unequal social and economic status, labor discrimination, violence against women, also the role

of women’s non-governmental organizations and the national machinery called to ensure gender

equality. “United Russia” identified significant problem areas where women’s civil rights were

violated and pledged to overcome them, specifically, by promoting women to executive and

legislative bodies of the federal and regional levels and to the local self-government.

48

Due to activists’ pressure and efforts, “Yabloko” also addressed gender issues and

included a special section “Equal rights and opportunities for men and women” into its program.

Noteworthy is the fact that this section became an integral part of the chapter entitled “Mature

civil society”. Thus, party ideologists linked women’s rights to human rights and civil society as

prerequisites for advancing towards modern democracy.

The “Homeland” bloc, established on the eve of 2003 parliamentary elections proposed a

program “Social justice and economic growth” with a special chapter on the status of women in

Russia entitled “Policy regarding women”. The document stated the necessity of leveling out

social and political status of women and men though it did not use explicitly gender-tinted

concepts and stuck to late Soviet rhetoric.

The KPRF program document “For the power of working people” promised to restore the

“authority of family, the sanctity of the house and home, the dignity of women-mothers”; to do

away with “propaganda of violence and debauchery on TV”; to ensure the “protection of

motherhood and childhood”.

The Union of Right Forces in its “Election program” attempted to attract voters by

promises to build “Great Russia” seen as a “society of equal opportunities”, “equal starting

conditions for all those willing to receive high-quality education and a good job”, a society of

“freedom” and “social justice and solidarity”. The “rightists” introduced into their program

“equal opportunities” concepts promoted since early 1990s by Russian women’s organizations45,

but “forgot” to mention gender equality as a basic prerequisite and a solid foundation for actual

equality of opportunities for everyone, for real freedom and democracy.

The LDPR program adopted in 2002, again (as indicated in Chapter 1) demonstrated an

openly sexist approach to ideas of women’s civil equality. Thus, LDPR reiterated the choice of

patriarchy and deep traditionalism made during the previous 1999 election campaign.

In general, programmatic substantiation of 2003 parliamentary elections testifies that the

vaccination of gender issues to official party documents prior to the elections partially

succeeded. Comparing these documents with the set of concepts proposed by parties prior to

1999 parliamentary elections makes evident, first, definite advancement in programmatic

assimilation of gender equality ideas and women’s integration in political processes, and second,

a clear watershed between “modernistic” and “traditionalistic” components of Russian politics in

various interpretation of these ideas.

With this in view, what happened in the 2007 parliamentary elections?

45 As a reminder, it was women’s organizations that back in 1993 insisted on incorporating into the Constitution then under design of the principle of “equal rights for women and men and equal opportunities for their realization” (Art. 19, part 3).

49

Political parties – participants of the election campaign by law were to submit for

registration to the CEC, alongside other documents, information about publishing party programs

in federal newspapers – “Rossiiskaya Gazeta”, “Parlamentskaya Gazeta”, etc., and on their

websites. These particular documents became objects of our attention, and their analysis allowed

conventionally refer them to one of three groups from the gender viewpoint: gender insensitive

documents; documents treating women’s status in the retrospect of demographic problems and

thus focusing on motherhood and childhood, and documents with some gender sensitivity

addressing to a certain degree gender inequality, necessity of overcoming gender discrimination

and protection of women’s rights.

Before moving to their practical analysis, let us outline the general ideological context

that in a certain way predetermined the substance of these documents. The following two ideas,

or rather two concepts – “sovereign democracy” and “economy of people”, also derivatives of

the latter related to the need to overcome the current demographic and family crises – permeated

public debates in the 2007 election campaign. The debates generated various proposals about

birth rate incentives, among them “mother capital” as a means of state support for women who

decided to start a second child. President Putin’s proposal from the annual State of the Nation

Appeal to the RF Federal Assembly in 2006 became a law “On Mother’s Capital” adopted by the

RF State Duma in 2007.

Matching these concepts with gender equality discourse is a difficult and delicate issue.

Experts and public at large with sufficient reasons consider a “unique” way of national

development multiplied by pro-natalistic strategies as an alternative to gender equality. These

ideas appeal to traditional values, traditional gender roles, traditional delineation of “private” and

“public” and thus, usually build a barrier to establishing principles of equality. However,

nowadays many countries have succeeded in linking birth rate incentive programs with programs

aimed at ensuring equal social opportunities for women and men. This required special efforts:

one had not to replace one by the other, but proceed from realistic, not false assumptions that

contradict the reality. Political forces in democratic countries concerned with these issues

propose various solutions of demographic problems, but bear in mind that they should meet

current interests and demands of men and women, the key one being gender equality. While

developing effective demographic policy, they talk about birth rate incentives and gender

equality (not about an offensive on women’s rights) including the right to a free choice of life

values and self-determination, about creating conditions that allow parents combine professional

activities and child education, and about special state policies that allows mothers and fathers

successfully perform their family and professional roles, etc.

50

In our case, hopes for serious consideration of these problems were undermined by the

demographic rhetoric and the “sovereign democracy” concept oriented at identification of a

peculiar democratic model that will help preserve traditional political culture rather than

transform and modernize it.

How did participants of 2007 parliamentary elections respond to this extremely

complicated and acute tangle of problems in their election propaganda? Did they try to reflect on

them or did they ignore them and got off with platitudes? Let us refer to election programs of

each of 11 political parties published in mass media. Three parties – “Civil Force” (program

entitled “Civic self-governance is a road to democracy”46; the Agrarian party of Russia (“Let us

support the village, and we shall have plentiful food products of our own”47; and the Democratic

Party of Russia (“12 steps to Europe: guidelines for the decade”48) failed to address these issues.

In fuller program versions placed on party websites in the Internet the “Civil Force” focused on

fighting against social dependence, while the Agrarian party, on the contrary, promised “to

improve women’s life and work conditions” and increase maternity allowances. Still, one may

with reason call election programs of these parties gender insensitive, or gender blind.

The next group of participants of the 2007 election race includes parties that completely

rejected gender equality ideas, paid tribute to pro-natalistic rhetoric and focused on paternalistic

slogans of protecting motherhood and childhood. Thus, the election program of “United Russia”

adopted at the YIII party congress in early October 200749 and entitled “Putin’s plan means

decent future for the great country” contained the chapter “Provision of a new quality of life”

that read: “Our priorities in health care include protection of motherhood and

childhood…”United Russia” is determined to create all necessary social, financial, economic and

legal conditions for raising birth rate. This means strengthened material support of families with

children. Since 2010, the “mother’s capital” will be paid to women that gave birth to or adopted

the second (third or next) child. This means support of women willing to continue with their

work after childbirth; priority development of medical sectors related to reproductive health of

potential mothers and fathers; elimination of homelessness by developing a network of family

boarding houses. Last, this means the creation of favorable “life space” for delivering and

educating children. “United Russia” shall initiate a program of mass construction of individual

family houses in suburban and rural areas that are to contribute to solving both housing and

demographic problems”.

46 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 14, 2007.47 Ibid.48 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 7, 2007.49 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 9, 2007.

51

For its part, “Fair Russia” that positioned itself as the second ruling party and

simultaneously – as a leftist party focused on social problems – drafted a program with even

more accentuated paternalistic ideas entitled “Confidence for the sake of the future/ Socialist

alternative for Russia in the XXI century”50. According to the document, “the demographic crisis

poses a threat to the national security of Russia. The younger generation fills their parents’

generation only by 60%. With every year, our population shrinks by 700 thousand. The scope of

homelessness is precarious. Large families have turned into a symbol of poverty and trouble”.

The document claimed that for this very reason “Russia needs a pro-family social policy. The

state should provide support to young parents: to encourage the birth of and to create conditions

for bringing up three or more children. Family mode of life, values of motherhood and childhood

should become a priority for mass media and TV”. What needs to be done? “Fair Russia”

proposed a whole package of measures, but the occasional reference to equality between men

and women was immediately lost in the pro-natalistic rhetoric. Among other things, the party

urged to “revive family values, raise the prestige of motherhood and childhood, actively promote

equal responsibility of men and women for children’s education and development (create TV

programs about healthy patterns of family life in Russia). To pay “family wages” amounting to

the social consumption standard to one of the spouses attending to children. To increase the

lump-sum birth allowance to 15 thousand rubles for the first child, 20 thousand for the second,

and 25 thousand for the third and subsequent children. To extend paid maternity leaves to three

years. To raise the monthly allowance during the maternity leave: to three thousand rubles for

the first child, six thousand for the second, and ten thousand for the third and subsequent

children. To raise the unified federal standard of monthly allowance for under age children from

needy families to 1000 rubles. To establish the Foundation for future generations and to transfer

300 thousand rubles to bank accounts of all newly born citizens of Russia to be used after

coming of age on condition of completing secondary education (11 classes) and a clean record of

convictions. To guarantee state funding for treatment of sterility, including in vitro fertilization.

To create favorable conditions for adoption and custody of orphans by Russian citizens. The

state in addition to the lump sum and monthly child allowances should pay to foster parents that

adopt or provide custody to children the amount of money equal to maintenance fees in state

institutions. To promote professional training and upgrading opportunities for women with a

recess in labor record (also due to maternity leaves). To introduce “demographic” increments to

pensions for “responsible” parenthood, i.e. education of three and more children as law-abiding

citizens of Russia. To guarantee to all Russian children a place in pre-school child-care

institutions. At that, parents should not pay more than 20% of children’s upkeep. To toughen

50 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 4, 2007.

52

legal sanctions against persons evading payment of child alimony. During non-payers’ search, to

pay the minimal state child alimony standard (not lower than 50% of child subsistence

expenses). To restore accessible rest and sanitation infrastructure, primarily, children’s summer,

sports and recreational camps”.

However, this extensive program did not contain any analysis of working mothers’

problems related to child birth and education, for instance, whether proposed payments

compensate for women’s career losses due to childbirth, or how to persuade employers to keep

women’s jobs during maternity leaves, etc., i.e. practical problems faced by women combining

professional activities with childbearing and education.

The election program of the Party of Social Justice pompously entitled “Human beings

means everything for us!”51 refers to the same group. The Party of Social Justice stated, “All of

us share a common goal – creating a social state and society of equal opportunities in Russia.

The Party of Social Justice shall strive by legal means to adopt a new strategy aimed at saving

Russia from extinction, that stipulates a sharp increase of diverse state support of motherhood

and childhood. The payment of “mother’s capital” should start since the birth of the first child,

and the level of payments should gradually increase after the birth of the second and subsequent

children”.

The LDPR program stood alone in this group of election documents infected with

demographic and pro-natalist rhetoric, though it paid its debt over and above. The program under

the eloquent slogan “For decent life in a strong country!”52 focused on taking care of fathers’

health and stated that “more attention needs to be paid to male health. Men die at 50, and this is

awful. Men are the stronghold of the state, and they are forgotten”. In addition, LDPR promised

to “provide conditions for increasing the population of Russia to 200 million people by the year

2040. LDPR has always stood for creating such conditions for women that would allow them

deliver children fearlessly and afford them economically”. Later, LDPR actually voiced the idea

of restoring the Soviet policy regarding working women that was defined by sociologists as a

“working mother’s contract”. The wording was as follows: “The state should undertake to look

after single women since they get pregnant and to become a spouse for single mothers, i.e. to

provide everything – medical care, allowances, housing, and a way of life”.

The next group of election documents at least partially applied such concepts as

“discrimination”, “equal opportunities” between women and men, and thus, though

conventionally, may be considered “gender sensitive”. Namely, KPRF presented the program

entitled “For the power of working people!”53. KPRF ideologists paid tribute to demographic

51 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 3, 2007.52 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 8, 2007.53 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 9, 2007.

53

problems and stated that in case of their victory in the elections “the state will undertake to pay

25% of housing loans after the birth of the first child, 50% – after the birth of the second child,

and the whole sum – after the birth of the third child”. Along with it, KPRF promised to “bring

back social benefits of the Soviet times for large families, invalids, and people residing in harsh

climatic conditions. The “Labor veteran” title and associated benefits will be back. Students

showing good results will receive stipends amounting to realistic subsistence expenses. Measures

to boost the birth rate will be initiated, among them provision of housing, establishment of a

network of affordable kindergartens, and decreased payment in pre-school institutions. Benefits

related to childbearing will amount to 25 thousand rubles. The “Mother heroine” title and

associated social benefits will be back. Teachers and mentors of pre-school institutions will

enjoy same social guarantees as school teachers”. At that, KPRF stated: “Women’s

discrimination in labor and other spheres will be resolutely eradicated”. This laconic thesis

allows to refer the KPRF program – very conventionally – to gender sensitive documents.

This time the election program of the “Yabloko” party in terms of gender equality was as

laconic. The draft program presented by its Federal Council on June 15-16, 2007, and eloquently

entitled “Seven steps to equal opportunities. From authoritarian rule and oligarchy, from poverty

and lawlessness to freedom and social justice. The program of building strong Russia” included a

large section “Social inequality”. The section addressed various forms of social discrimination in

modern Russia – discrimination of pensioners – “common citizens”, discrimination of public

sector employees (teachers, doctors, servicemen, people of arts), discrimination of women who

on the average receive one third less than men; discrimination of families and parents bringing

up children on meager allowances paid for a limited period of time, also amid lack of seats in

pre-school institutions”. This draft of "Yabloko"’s election program was placed on the party

website in Internet. However, the version published in mass media by order of the Central

Election Commission did not contain the thesis about women’s “discrimination”, only a promise

to establish in case of the victory in the elections “an affordable system of nurseries and

kindergartens”, to ensure “an opportunity for obtaining a place therein” to every child, and to pay

child allowances equal to sustainability expenses before the child goes to school”54. This promise

was practically similar to the approach to “women’s” issues professed by gender-blind parties.

This means that the “pro-natalistic” rhetoric dominating the parliamentary election campaign

compelled “Yabloko” to recede its attitudes to gender equality and, in fact, to side with those

willing, intentionally or unintentionally, to bury this issue under the pretext of some abstract

concerns about the demographic situation in Russia.

54 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 16, 2007.

54

The unusual mixture of realistic and demagogical gender proposals permeated the

“Patriots of Russia” election program ambitiously entitled “Patriots of Russia on the way

towards No. 1 country”55. In the chapter “Resolving our compatriots’ problems”, the “patriots”

promised to “Russian women, most beautiful, beloved and desirable” to raise mothers’ low

incomes irrespective of whether they had a job, pay monthly child allowance amounting to 7000

rubles, introduce lump-sum payments upon childbirth amounting to 300000 rubles paid at once

and in cash, to extend paid maternity leaves to three years and account them in the overall labor

and pension record, provide women’s and children’s access to high quality and free medical

services without waiting in exhausting queues, promote a network of pre-school child care

facilities and schools and eliminate waiting lists”. Another promise differed this program

favorably from others. “Patriots of Russia” proposed to “eliminate injustice in the remuneration

of women and men in similar positions performing similar duties”.

“Patriots of Russia” tried to observe gender balance in their program document.

Appealing to “men, family protectors and supporters” they undertook “to ensure to heads of

families sufficient income to fully provide for family needs and requirements (average wages in

the country should not be less than 30 000 rubles per month), to ensure all able-bodied and

willing residents of Russia with stable jobs and decent wages, to create all necessary conditions

for culture, sports and leisure time”.

The SPS program “The Union of Right Forces – for freedom and humanity”56 was

politically correct (though laconic) as compared to other election documents. The chapter “Equal

opportunities” read, “Representatives of all social groups and residents of all regions should have

real opportunities to enjoy their constitutional rights to education, medical care and choice of

occupation. Women should have equal rights to professional careers and protection from

discrimination in the labor market”.

х х х

What is the grand total? After gender review of election statements of Russian political

parties running for mandates in December 2007 elections, one needs to admit, first, that

assimilation of gender equality issues initiated on the eve of the 2003 election campaign

practically stopped. Political parties with rare exceptions abandoned this problem in favor of

abstract and paternalistically tinted slogans about “protection of motherhood and childhood” that

echoed state goals of overcoming the demographic crisis by way of raising the birth rate. Second,

the watershed between “traditionalist” and “modernist” components of Russian political system

revealed during the 2003 parliamentary elections grew nearly invisible in 2007. Judging by

55 "Rossiiskaya Gazeta", November 7, 2007.56 "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", November 9, 2007

55

program statements, the “modernists” obviously receded from their positions. Third, the

increased number of female candidates nominated by political parties in these elections reflected

not so much the conscious choice of political actors – one could not detect any trace thereof – as

forced political correctness. In other words, in order to look modern, Russian political parties had

to consider demands of Russian women’s organizations, reckon with party activists’ pressure57,

and look back at the international public opinion. This means that Russian women’s integration

into modern political processes resembles imitation rather than deliberate and planned activities

towards democratization of public life.

3. Elections results.

Gender composition of the Fifth RF State Duma

After the voting on March 2, 2007, four out of 11 political parties – participants in the

election race – won the chance to form State Duma factions. Deputy’s mandate went to “United

Russia”, KPRF, LDPR and “Fair Russia”. “United Russia” received 64,3% of votes, KPRF –

11,57%, LDPR – 8,14%, and “Fair Russia” – 7,74%. According to these results, the mandates

were distributed in the following way: “United Russia” obtained 315 mandates (and,

consequently, constitutional majority in the parliament); KPRF – 57 mandates; LDPR – 40

mandates; and “Fair Russia” – 38 mandates.

By the data of the Central Election Commission published in “Rossiiskaya Gazeta”

immediately after the votes’ count (on December 11, 2007), there were 41 women among 450

elected deputies – a little over 9%. Among 315 “United Russia” deputies, there were 25 women

(7,9% of the faction membership). Among 57 members of the KPRF faction there were four

women (7%). Among 40 deputies of the LDPR faction – four women (10% of the faction

membership). Among 38 members of the “Fair Russia” faction, there were 8 women (21%).

These results reflect the realistic volume of power allotted to men and women under the modern

Russian gender order. The electorate voted for this power alignment and in fact legalyzed gender

asymmetry by their ballots.

Then, a long expected event happened: over a hundred of elected deputies from among

“locomotives” abandoned mandates and passed them to the so called “second” echelon. Among

these “lucky persons” there were 22 women – 19 candidates from “United Russia” and three

from “Fair Russia”. This event changed the gender structure of the RF State Duma. Now, there

were 63 women among 450 deputies (14%), and their breakdown among various factions was as

follows:

57 See Internet websites of SPS and “Yabloko” parties with special “women’s pages” listing these demands.

56

• “United Russia” – 44 women (there were 98 women – enlisted candidates);

• KPRF – 4 women (89 women – enlisted candidates);

• LDPR – 4 women (48 women – enlisted candidates);

• “Fair Russia” – 11 women (104 women – enlisted candidates).

Thus, the gender structure of party factions in the Fifth RF State Duma took a new

shape. As of January 2008,

• “United Russia” faction included 315 deputies, among them 44 women (14% of the

total);

• KPRF faction included 57 deputies, among them 4 women (7% of the total);

• LDPR faction included 40 deputies, among them 4 women (10% оof the total);

• “Fair Russia” faction included 38 deputies, among them 11 women (nearly 29% of

the total).

For comparison, see below the gender structure of party factions of the Third and Fourth

RF State Dumas

As of January 2004, the gender structure of factions of the Fourth RF State Duma (44

women-deputies) looked as follows:

• “United Russia” faction – 306 deputies, among them 28 women;

• KPRF – 52 deputies, among them 6 women;

• “Homeland” bloc – 38 deputies, among them 4 women;

• LDPR – 36 deputies, among them 2 women;

• Independent deputies – 15 deputies, among them 4 women.

As of February 1, 2000, the gender structure of factions in the Third RF State Duma (34

women-deputies) looked as follows:

• KPRF faction – 95 deputies, among them 11 women;

• “Unity” – 81 deputies, among them 7 women;

• “Homeland – All Russia” – 43 deputies, among them 4 women;

• “The Union of Right Forces” – 33 deputies, among them 4 women;

• “Yabloko” – 21 deputies, among them 2 women;

• LDPR – 17 deputies, among them 0;

• “People’s Deputy” – 58 deputies, among them 3 women;

• “Regions of Russia” – 34 deputies, among them 3 women.

Comparison of gender structures of RF State Dumas of three convocations reveals, first,

an evident increase in the number of women both in the parliament and in the faction of the

ruling “United Russia” party; second, a gradual increase in the number of women in the LDPR

57

faction despite its anti-feminist statements, and third, a decreasing number of women in the

KPRF faction. The “Fair Russia” faction stands apart among them, both because this party made

its debut in the 2007 elections and because its gender composition looks almost ideally balanced

as compared to other parties. One needs to mention that in the 2007 elections this party

nominated several women with previous legislative experience in factions that were absent from

the Fifth RF State Duma. The party apparently managed to win seats in the Russian parliament

due to their fame and popularity.

Now, let us look closer at gender dimensions of governing bodies of the Fifth RF State

Duma. The positions of Chair and First Deputy-Chair of the RF State Duma went to Boris

Gryzlov and Oleg Morozov accordingly. Nine Deputy Chair positions went to six men and three

women, in other words, women received 30% of these posts. Among them were Nadezhda

Gerasimova, who joined the elections as Deputy Minister of EMERCOM; Svetlana Zhurova,

former Olympic champion in skating; and Lubov Sliska, former Vice-Speaker of the Fourth RF

State Duma. Speaker of the RF State Duma and all Vice Speakers form the parliament’s highest

governing body – the RF State Duma Council (11 members) that now includes three women –

S. Zhurova, N. Gerasimova and L. Sliska.

Men head all four factions of the RF State Duma. The biggest of them – the “United

Russia” faction – has a complex structure. Faction leader (Boris Gryzlov) leans in his work on

four first deputies, among them one woman (Tatiana Yakovleva, Head of Committee on public

health in the previous State Duma), and on seven deputies (among them Lubov Sliska). The

“United Russia” faction has another governing body, the four–member Presidium including

S. Zhurova and N. Gerasimova. Thus, it is evident that four women are members of the

governing body of the “United Russia” faction dominating the State Duma: Gerasimova N.,

Zhurova S., Sliska L. and Yakovleva T.

Most lawmaking takes place in specialized parliamentary Committees and Commissions.

There are 30 Committees and three Commissions in the Fifth RF State Duma. “United Russia”

members head 24 out of 30; members of other factions head six Committees. Among 33 Chairs

of Committees and Commissions, there are four women. Two of them managed to retain the

same Committees, which they headed in the Fourth State Duma. Valentina Pivnenko during

several convocations had successively retained the post of Chair of Committee on problems of

the North and the Far East, and Natalia Komarova – the post of Chair of Committee on natural

resources and nature management. Both are members of the “United Russia” faction. Olga

Borzova became Chair of Committee on public health, thus replacing Tatiana Yakovleva from

the previous State Duma. Both are “United Russia” members. The post of Chair of Committee

58

on women, family and children went to Elena Mizulina, a “Fair Russia” deputy, who succeeded

Ekaterina Lakhova (“United Russia”) in the previous State Duma.

Such arrangement contributed to the growing number of women in governing positions in

the Russian parliament: five women in the Fourth State Duma, and seven women – in the Fifth

State Duma.

Let us move on to another issue, draw a collective portrait of women – members of the

Fifth RF State Duma, and attempt to track changes that occurred with time, from convocation to

convocation. Judging by the bio-data58, most female Duma members possess extensive life

experience, and nearly half of them are aged from 50 to 59. Nearly one third belongs to the

generation of 30-40 year olds, while five are quite young (under 30). Overall, there are 11

deputies under 30 in this State Duma. Again, the gender parity is close to ideal in this age group.

Eight women belong to the large group of those over 60 (overall, there are 71 deputies in this age

group).

Let us compare this data with age parameters of female members of the Third and Fourth

RF State Dumas. There was not a single woman under 30 or over 60 in the Third State Duma. In

the Fourth State Duma only one woman was under 30, and four – over 60. Evidently, every

convocation sees a slow, but evident expansion of age boundaries of nominated women, which

in general raises their chances of winning seats in the parliament.

Over half of current female deputies come from regional centers – these selection criteria

remain stable and intact from convocation to convocation.

Nearly all women-deputies, similar to parliaments of previous two convocations, have

university education. In the current State Duma, there are two women-legislators with secondary

education. (Overall, there are eleven MPs with secondary education). This contradictory factor

testifies both to expanded opportunities for women’ Duma membership and to lower criteria for

nomination of deputies on the whole.

Over half of current women-deputies has prior legislative experience either of the federal

or regional levels. Over one third worked in high positions in executive bodies of power. Only

one out of seven is linked to the business community, and a small number represents public

organizations, primarily focused on sports and youth affairs.

The overwhelming majority of women-parliamentarians are married and have children,

as a rule – one or two. N. N. Karpovich with four children is an exception. Incidentally, the

number of male deputies with large families is bigger. Victor Voitenko, Valery Gal’chenko and

Andrey Skotch have largest families – six children each. Akhmar Zavgaev and Foat Komarov

have five children each. 12 deputies have four children each.58 See further in this book the Chapter “Short biodata of women – deputies of the Fifth, Fourth and Third State Dumas”.

59

Judging by these criteria, the average woman-deputy of the current State Duma is a

middle-aged woman, whose youth fell on Soviet times; a resident of a regional center where she

received university education, married and brought up one or, at the most – two children, and

who made a career allowing her to join the local nomenclature and attract the interest of leaders

of the ruling “United Russia” party. Her range of interests and approaches to social and political

problems are determined by these properties.

х х х

Summing up the chapter, let us highlight probably the most important issue. In 1999

parliamentary elections KPRF brought to Parliament the largest number of female deputies. In

2003, “United Russia” became a leader by this parameter. In 2007 elections two-thirds of

deputies were members of the ruling party, which allows us to assert that “United Russia” bears

responsibility for both their quantity and quality. The analysis demonstrated that the ruling party

managed, first, to raise the number of women-deputies, and second, to symbolically ensure

gender parity at least in one, not numerous but still significant part of their list, namely, among

members of the under 30 age group. This is important for the future.

At that, one cannot but note that undertaking the task to change the gender balance of the

deputy corps, “United Russia” resorted to methods that would allow to preserve the existing

gender order. For this reason while selecting candidate for nomination it obviously favored

trepresentatives of specific social strata usually called “nomenclature”, i.e. those whose “vision

of the world” matched the party’s strive for stability and development without serious

transformations.

Such mode of gender selection became evident in 2003 parliamentary elections and

consolidated in 2007 elections, thus confirming the key conclusion from the gender monitoring.

The conclusion is that since the early 21st century the so called “social elevator” that ensures

promotion to politics and state governance to women, which do not belong to the state

nomenclature among them third sector representatives, namely, activists of women’s

organizations – is in fact non-operational in our country. The not numerous female part of the

Russian political elite is formed in compliance with traditions of Russian statehood that leans on

bureaucracy and does not allow for a stronger impact of other social groups, among them civil

society institutions. This mode of selecting female power elite may impede the leveling out of

social opportunities of men and women and in various ways block the implementation of the

constitutional principle of gender equality, and, in addition – the adoption on the state level of

public development goals related to overall policy humanization.

60

CHAPTER 3. 2008 Presidential elections: Gender aspect

1. Nomination for participation in the campaign

Voting for the third President of Russia took place three months after parliamentary

elections, on March 2, 2008. The Central Election Commission registered four candidates for

participation in the “quietest” and most “predictable”59 election campaign. Among them were

Andrey Bogdanov – an independent candidate (“samovydvizhenets”, or a “self-nominee”),

leader of the Democratic Party of Russia; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, officially nominated by

LDPR – a winner of the parliamentary elections; Gennady Zyuganov, nominated by CPRF,

another winner of the parliamentary elections, and, last, Dmitry Medvedev, Vice-Premier of the

Russian government, a non-party candidate, nominated by “United Russia” after consultations

with the Agrarian party of Russia, “Civil Force” and “Fair Russia” that received the total of

75,39% votes in the Duma elections. RF President Vladimir Putin approved this choice, and

Dmitry Medvedev joined the election as his successor.

Several politicians that planned to join the battle for voters found themselves overboard

of the election campaign. In late 2007, Boris Nemtsov, who intended to become an SPS

candidate, and Vladimir Bukovsky, supported by the “Yabloko” party fell out of the race. In late

January 2008, Mikhail Kasyanov (also a “samovydvizhenets”) still retained the hope of joining

the elections. Similar to A. Bogdanov, another “samovydvizhenets”, M. Kasyanov was to collect

two million signatures in his support. After verification, the Central Election Commission

deemed valid the signatures collected by A. Bogdanov, but regarded invalid the signatures

collected by M. Kasyanov’s team, and denied his registration.

Thus, only male politicians either passed the CEC registration or failed to clear the

hurdle. The latest presidential campaign actually broke off the trend of nominating women as

contenders for the position of RF President that аt the very least had installed in Russian political

culture since mid-1990s. This time for one or another reason not a single woman was ready to

join the future battle for Presidency – the battle with a predetermined result.

The first woman in the history of Russia that risked competing for the top state position

was Galina Starovoitova, “Democratic Russia” party leader and State Duma member. She

attempted to join 1996 elections, but failed to enlist the support of one million voters necessary

for registration with the CEC, and fell out of the race at the preparatory stage of the election

campaign. Right after her, as if to nail down the trend, Ella Pamfilova, member of the First and

Second RF State Dumas, Minister of social protection in Ye. Gaidar’s cabinet, a noted politician

59 See: “Russian Newsweek”, 25.02-02.03.2008. P.17.

61

and a public person, joined the 2000 presidential race. Registered as a candidate for RF

Presidency, she received a little over 1% of votes in the elections. Both female contenders for the

top state position stated openly that by joining the election battle they counted not on victory but

on enriching their political experience, expanding political connections and political capital.

Moreover, they hoped to pave the way to the political Olympus for other women. In other words,

in addition to their own goals they were solving the task of legitimizing the gender parity

principle in top-level elections in Russia.

Irina Khakamada was the third in the row. At the time of her nomination as a candidate

for RF Presidency Irina Khakamada co-chaired the Union of Right Forces, and prior to that

served as Vice-Speaker of the RF State Duma. She decided to start the presidential race right

after the Union of Right Forces’ defeat in 2003 parliamentary elections. At that time SPS,

“Yabloko” and other democratic opposition associations seriously debated boycotting

presidential elections conducted, in their opinion, under excessive administrative pressure. In this

case, Irina Khakamada’s position ran counter to opinions of her party comrades. However, she

managed to overcome these attitudes and to make her colleagues partially change their minds; some

of them considered her views appropriate and supported her.

The campaign flow demonstrated that it was easier for Irina Khakamada than for her

predecessors to overcome resisting public opinions; by the time of her nomination, the latter had

already assimilated the idea of women’ similar opportunities with men to claim top state

positions. She won the support of 3,8% of voters. The campaign for electing the second

President of Russia joined by V. Putin, N. Kharitonov, S. Glazyev and other famous politicians

and supported by mighty political forces, financial resources and political traditions, was quite

intricate. However, I. Khakamada managed to improve her predecessor E. Pamfilova’s result

nearly four times, and thus in a way fixed in public mentality the idea of gender equality as a

precondition of free and fair elections to all, even top levels of power.

This may account for the fact that on the eve of 2008 presidential elections, when

contemplating about V. Putin’s potential successor, both experts and common citizens added

female names to the list of famous male names, most frequently the name of Valentina

Matvienko, S.-Petersburg Governor. There was some substantial ground for it. First, the only

female governor in Russia has always retained top positions in the rating of governors most

frequently quoted in the federal mass media. Second, according to public opinion polls, over half

of respondents in principle did not rule out the possibility of voting for a woman in presidential

elections. According to sociologists60, when asked what woman they wanted to see as President

of Russia, majority of Russian respondents invariably mentioned the name of S.-Petersburg’s

60 See: NEWSru.com, 01.09.2006, http://www.newsru.com/russia/01sep2006/matvi.html

62

Governor. Irina Khakamada came second as far as the quoting rate61. In addition, respondents

recollected the names of Lubov Sliska and Ella Pamfilova. However, according to analysts, only

Valentina Matvienko had more or less real chances of coming to the “throne”. Vladimir

Lysenko, Head of the Modern policy institute claimed that only she “combined the qualities of a

statesperson and a business leader and had broad connections”.

On September 1, 2006, the “Novye Izvestya” newspaper also wrote that the idea of

nominating Valentina Matvienko, S.-Petersburg’s Governor, as one of “successors” of the acting

President was debated at a very high level. This initiative was presumably entitled “Valentina the

Great”, and her S.-Petersurg entourage actively lobbied Valentina Matvienko. However,

Valentina Matvienko in numerous interviews categorically denied her possible presidency, and

her press-service repeatedly argued that “Matvienko’s nomination for presidency is an absurd

rumor”62.

In the fall of 2007, several “United Russia” representatives also came out with a proposal

of providing institutional support to women capable of competing for top state positions.

Namely, “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” wrote in late November 2007, that members of the Volgograd

chapter of “United Russia” proposed establishing the post of Vice-President in Russia earmarked

only for women. According to the newspaper, Oleg Savchenko, leader of the Volgograd chapter,

said, “one needs to use women’s political activity in the interests of strengthening the Russian

political system”63. The article also cited feedback to this idea including the opinion of Dmitry

Savelyev, Director of “Systema” Effective management institute who assumed that introducing

the post of female Vice-President in Russia “was a strategic idea”. By way of clarification

D. Savelyev reminded “awhile ago the Kremlin really considered the idea of nominating a

woman as successor to Vladimir Putin and as President. Then, the most frequent name was

Valentina Matvienko’s name”. Then, D. Savelyev forecast that in case this initiative by the

Volgograd “edinorossy” (“United Russia” members) came true, in the spring of 2008 Ludmila

Putina could take up the post of RF Vice-President.

When asked by “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” what would happen with this “women’s quota” if

another woman became RF President, O. Savchenko, the author of this idea, answered “then

Russia will get into reliable female hands”.

On the one hand, the very fact of public debates about women’s role in Russian politics

in terms of the presidential election campaign is significant for gender analysis of the elections,

as it further confirms out assumption about gradual legitimization of the gender equality

61 See, in particular, data of surveys by the Institute of Social Studies (Russian Academy of Sciences), presented in the monograph “Freedom, Inequality, Brotherhood. Sociological Portrait of Modern Russia”. Edited by M. K. Gorshkov. М.: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2007. P. 430-431.62 ИА REGNUM, 01.09.2006, 16:32 http://www.regnum.ru/news/698191.html63 “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, November 26, 2007.

63

principle in Russian public mentality since mid-1990s. However, on the other hand, it is obvious

that the discussion took place not in the center, but on the outskirts of public debates, and served

as a smoke screen disguising the fact that women’s alienation from nominating candidates for

RF Presidency indicated a backlash from democratic procedures called to ensure equal chances

of men and women in the election process (including passive electoral rights, i.e. the right to be

elected). Such a smoke screen was also necessary because at that time Russian voters captiously

watched the tense struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama prior to the presidential

elections in the USA. This is not by accident that the Volgograd “edinorossy” took care of this

idea before electing Russia’s third President and proposed Ludmila Putina as a candidate for the

“female” Vice-President post. This initiative reminded of the famous phrase “to stay with the

best”. The international situation “compelled and obliged”.

2. Candidate programs and statements

Election programs as ideological documents intend to provide certain interpretation of

activities that take place in the country. Similar to candidates’ speeches and interviews during the

election campaign they determine state priorities and identify problem zones of social

development. They either intrinsically help legitimize ongoing processes or else justify activities

of one or another political force, but most frequently implement both functions at a time.

Anyway, their goal is to present a certain “picture of the world” by using concepts that are most

close and most acute for public mentality. In our case, of interest is whether gender equality

issues have come in view of politicians running for the post of the President of Russia and

whether there has been any dynamics in program approaches to this issue.

In order to answer the question we need to go 12 years back, to mid-1990s, and recollect

the fundamental program document entitled “Individual. Family. Society. State” and presented

by Boris Yeltsin, the primary contender for RF Presidency, in 1996 elections. The program

contained a special chapter about women’s rights ideally correlated with strictest international

gender equality norms. B. Yeltsin promised in this document “on legislative and executive levels

to ensure real equality between genders”, to strive “to increase women’s representation in power

structures”, also to support “women’s preparation for political and managerial activities”. In

addition, the program stated the necessity “to establish gender expertise of the RF legislation”,

“develop strict sanctions for curbing most blatant forms of women’s discrimination”, “design

measures towards realizing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, overcome salary

gaps between industries with predominantly male or female labour”, “promote the establishment

of crisis centers for rehabilitation of victims of violence and ethnic conflicts”, etc.

64

At that time, many experts criticized B. Yeltsin’s program for declarations and slogans,

which was only partially true. First, the program largely reproduced demands of new

independent women’s organizations and served as a response to them. Second, time showed that

the pledge of allegiance to gender-sensitive approach to social development was also significant.

Unfortunately, one has a hunch only after the event.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, three out of 12 contenders for RF Presidency

remembered to prioritize gender equality in their program statements, though in a different way.

Among them was Ella Pamfilova, the only female candidate in the elections. Her presidential

program “Preserve yourself. Preserve your family. Revive Russia” in many respects resonated

with the 1996 program moved by B. Yeltsin. In E. Pamfilova’s program, a special chapter was

devoted to women’s rights.

The chapter began with stating the candidate’s fundamental views on gender equality,

namely “democracy presupposes the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women”.

Further, it stated that elimination of discrimination was a long-term task that presupposed strict

observance of the principle of equality between women and men in labor, family life and child

education, also overcoming violence against women. The main point here, in E. Pamfilova’s

opinion, was “the problem of women’s representation in power echelons”. E. Pamfilova argued,

“making 53% of the population of Russia, women are practically not involved in making

economic, social and political decisions on the government level. Also, they reside in a country,

which legal tools are not adjusted to protecting their rights”. E. Pamfilova promised: “I am ready

to protect women’s rights because I know what it is not only by hearsay!” The program did not

outline any concrete or qualifying methods of fulfilling this promise.

Grigory Yavlinsky, candidate of the ”Yabloko” party, also made a comprehensive

statement about women’s rights in Russia in the course of this campaign. On March 7, 2000, the

eve of the International Women’s Day, “Komsomol’skaya Pravda” published his big article

“Russian women can do everything”, where the party leader for the first time during the party’s

existence in the national political arena openly stated his commitment to the constitutional

principle of equal rights, freedoms and opportunities for women and men. In the article,

G. Yavlinsky criticized B. Yeltsin for the fact that his program statements and decrees on gender

equality remained purely declarative, and expressed his readiness to promote the constitutional

norm of equality of men and women not only in words, but also in deeds. G. Yavlinsky listed,

among other measures, women’s promotion to legislatures of various levels; adoption of special

legal norms to guarantee women’s full-fledged participation in labor and political activities;

gender expertise of labor, social and family legislation. The “Yabloko” leader highlighted in

italics the following thesis, “Men should have their rights, and not more; women should have

65

their rights, and not less!”; “Yabloko’s” guiding principle – protection of the weak and support

of the strong – may be also applicable to resolving women’s problems”.

G. Yavlinsky’s statement obviously contributed to “Yabloko”’s social and liberal

program. Gender blindness used to be one of its visible gaps, and G. Yavlinsky attempted to fill

the gap during the tight Presidential race. Yielding to circumstances, he made a stake at female

voters that, by preliminary public opinion polls, prevailed among his supporters in the elections.

One may conventionally treat as gender sensitive the program document by another

contender for Presidency in 2000 elections. Stanislav Govorukhin, a famous filmmaker and State

Duma member put together for the elections a paper under a splash headline “Make the right

choice! A personal letter to voters”. One of its passages reads, “one needs the “dictatorship” of

law and responsibility. Under Mr. Yeltsin, laws existed on their own, while the life of our

country was largely governed by other perceptions of right and wrong. Read our fundamental

law – the RF Constitution, and compare it with life… Do you agree that men and women possess

equal opportunities?” S. Govorukhin promised to “change the situation radically” and ensure the

rule of law. Proceeding from the logic of this promise, one may assume that it also comprised the

constitutional norm of equal opportunities for men and women.

Programs and statements of all other candidates for RF Presidency in 2000 elections did

not include any specific provisions about gender equality. For appealing to women, the

contenders mostly used various semantic tools, which indicated their commitment not so much

to gender equality principles as to traditional concepts about women’s role and place in society.

V. Putin, the principal contender for RF Presidency, avoided direct program statements

about this issue during the election campaign, with the exception of one document – the “Open

letter to Russian electorate” published by “Komsomolskaya Pravda” on February 25, 2000. In

the letter, V. Putin contemplated about acute problems of Russian society and about state

priorities. Revealing his views about the national “idea” or value that could unite the country, he

highlighted that “Russian citizens respect moral principles that they first learn in their family and

that form the core of patriotism”. On the other hand, the chapter “On our priorities” identified

“overcoming poverty” as a major task. As is well known, in Russia the poor primarily include

old-age people, pensioners, 2/3 of who are women. While addressing them, V. Putin promised to

pay pensions on time and to provide targeted assistance to needy ones.

On the eve of March 8 celebrations, V. Putin paid tribute to traditions and visited

Ivanovo,”the town of fiancées”, a local weaving factory and an orphanage. In addition, he made

several remarks during the election campaign about “women differing from men by their

intellect, intuition, beauty and kindness”, and stated, “without women, public development is

impossible”. During the campaign, V. Putin twice referred in his statements to famous verses by

66

the Russian poet A. Nekrasov that Russian women “on running will stop a horse, a burning log

hut will enter”. He cited these verses, first, when proposing Lubov Sliska as Speaker of the RF

State Duma, and second, when speaking in support of Valentina Matvienko who at that moment

decided to run for the post of S.-Petersburg Governor. Obviously, this collection of statements

does not allow for making simple or, moreover, comprehensive assumptions about V. Putin’s

attitude to equality.

One could judge about the attitudes of KPRF leader G. Zuganov, V. Putin’s key opponent

in the elections, by two program statements “One can do it today. Seven program statements by

Gennady Zuganov” and “Appeal to the people by G. A. Zuganov, candidate for Russian

Presidency”.

Two out of seven program statements very conventionally qualify as an appeal to

women, namely, statement No.5, “Enough of humiliating people by poverty. Immediate double

rise in pensions, social allowances and wages for public sector employees”, and statement No 6,

“For the future of our nation!... Special programs of assistance to and development of families,

motherhood and childhood, also housing construction”. Though addressed to voter groups

mostly comprising women, these statements did not hold a word either about women’s rights or

women’s discrimination.

The remaining seven candidates – members of the 2000 presidential campaign never

mentioned gender equality as a specific aspect of democratization of Russian public life and state

politics.

In 2004 presidential elections, gender issues were practically absent from public debates

held by contenders for the top state position and from their appeals to the electorate including

Irina Khakamada’s official presidential program (she also shared her views on her personal

Internet site).

Judging by website materials, I. Khakamada considered guaranteed opportunities for

women’s political involvement as the main prerequisite for ensuring gender equality. In her

opinion, women’s involvement in national politics is not a women’s problem; it is a public

problem. “Why does one need it?”, I. Khakamada asked a rhetoric question and answered it: “…

when half of humanity representing a completely different world is not involved in decision

making, it results in making wrong decisions… Women’s invitation to politics is a way of

solving problems”.

I. Khakamada identified several barriers on Russian women’s way to politics, peculiar

public mentality being the first one. I. Khakamada noted, “Women primordially forgive any

foolishness to men, but do not forgive slightest errors to women. Women vote less for female

politicians, and even more so cannot forgive women-politicians attaining a higher level of life.

67

The problem is aggravated by the fact that the new generation is even more conservative than the

contemporary one”. The second barrier is financial resources. According to I. Khakamada, “no

one wants to invest in women-politicians”, due to which she suggested “establishing non-profit

organizations or foundations to raise funds for promoting women-politicians”. Another barrier is

current institutional procedures of promoting people to public politics. I. Khakamada argued that

the only way of overcoming this barrier is introducing a special gender norm (“quota”) into the

Russian electoral legislation, namely, “representatives of one gender should not hold over 70%

on federal election lists”. She later clarified, “One should initiate election techniques that would

give women advantages in the elections”. In addition, one may introduce the following principle

into the RF Constitution:”Only a person of the opposite sex may become Vice-President of

Russia”. Obviously, I. Khakamada’s suggestion did not sink into oblivion; the Volgograd

“edinorossy” reiterated it – though in an abridged form – during 2008 presidential elections.

In 2008 presidential elections, political programs proposed by four officially registered

candidates – Andrey Bogdanov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Gennady Zyuganov and Dmitry

Medvedev mirrored programs proposed by their parties in parliamentary elections. For analysis

thereof see the previous chapter; as a reminder, in these programs the concept of democratic

development through adoption of the gender equality principle gave way to demography, birth

rate increase as the national priority, and “mother’s capital” and motherhood as women’s

predestination. Commentators neatly called this turn “demography instead of democracy”.

The only contender for the President’s post that at least tried to expand this approach in

addressing the electorate was D. Medvedev, a non-partisan candidate nominated, as we well

remember, by a pool of political parties and not tightly bound by party ideology. Well-informed

observers64 noted that during the Presidential campaign D. Medvedev toured Russian regions

extensively and worked fastidiously with various voter groups. He presented himself to voters as

a person “well aware of real problems of real people”, among them real problems of Russian

women, and experienced in managing priority national projects as Vice-Premier of the Russian

government. At least two among four national projects – on education and on health care – target

women who constitute a majority of workers in these spheres of economy. Herewith comes

D. Medvedev’s awareness of the so-called “women’s agenda”65.

The agenda includes humanitarian issues that women are still traditionally responsible

for, among them children’s upbringing, education and health protection, care of senior citizens

and most household duties. Women bear this burden of responsibilities on the par with men and

in addition to labor activity. Nowadays, women together with men provide for the family and

64 See, for instance, Newsweek, 25.02-02.03.2008. P.1765 See Excerpts from the verbatim record of the speech by Dmitry Medvedev, Vice-Premier of the Russian Government at Siberian Mother’s Forum. 14 February, 2008 – http://www.rost.ru

68

engage in various professions. When combined, these duties lay a double if not a triple burden

on working women, and they face a dilemma: at a certain point in lives women have to choose

their place and define their priorities. Back in the Soviet times, in order to resolve this dilemma

the state concluded with women symbolic contracts labeled “working mothers’ contracts” by

sociologists. By terms of the “contract”, in exchange for women’s readiness to serve both as

mothers and workers the state provided support through specific mother’s “benefits” and

“privileges” – additional payments for the double burden. They included, among other things,

accessible and affordable pre-school institutions, state allowances for children’s nutrition and

clothing, sick leaves in case of children’s illness, etc. During the 1990s reform this contract, in

fact, ended. The state minimized its support of motherhood and childhood due to many reasons –

economic, ideological and even political. The key reason was liberal reforms and radical

reduction of all social programs including those in support of “motherhood and childhood”. On

the other hand, the constitutional principle of equal rights, freedoms and opportunities for

women and men, similar to the rest of the Russian legislation focused not on paternalistic state

policies of the Soviet type, but on ensuring equal chances for men and women’ involvement in

all spheres of public life, i.e. on gender equality policy. However, even the basics of such policy

are not in place yet. This is exactly what D. Medvedev attempted to do, at least as a first

approximation, in several statements for the electorate.

Observers and experts nearly unanimously called D. Medvedev’s participation in the

Civic Forum in Moscow, the economic forum in Krasnoyarsk and the Siberian mothers’ forum in

Novosibirsk66 the climax of his election campaign. The latter event allowed D. Medvedev to

share at length his ideas about new forms of state support for women. The candidate for RF

Presidency started his presentation in Novosibirsk by quoting basic provisions of his program

“Putin’s plan – decent future for the great country” and V. Putin’s views in general. He

highlighted Putin’s important initiatives towards raising birthrate in Russia, among them

increased childcare allowances up to 18 months of age and expanded range of recipients thereof;

provision of lump-sum “foster parents” bonus after adopting orphans and wages for nurses and

foster parents; provision of “mother’s capital” to women after the birth of the second child.

D. Medvedev especially highlighted the continuity of his course and claimed, “We shall

strengthen this support and proceed with this policy”. He also promised, among others, the

following measures: “indexation of all allowances, in particular, the “mother’s capital” as a

fundamental support tool. In 2009, the indexation will exceed 20 thousand rubles, and by 2010,

at the peak of allowance payments, they will amount not to 250, but to 307 thousand rubles”.

66 Ibid

69

However, D. Medvedev also said that state policies should take into account the status of

Russian women, primarily the necessity to perform the roles of wives, mothers and workers. In

his opinion, women face new realities in the labor market that mostly descend from privatization

and aggravate their situation. Nowadays, private employers’ interests frequently run counter to

interests both of women-employees and the state that by various means tries to induce women to

have second and third children. The state does not pay to employers to hire workers that take

lengthy maternity leaves or momentous child sick leaves, etc. Being aware of such facts,

D. Medvedev said in Novosibirsk, “We understand that in any developed country and in a

normal and full-fledged society women should have an opportunity to resume productive labor

irrespectively of child education or focus on other activities. However, we need not only

willingness and determination but also a proper legal base, because we fully understand that in

current conditions not all employers are ready to accept women back. Towards this, last year we

commissioned to draft a set of amendments to the family law. Now, it is ready in principle, also

regarding women’s professional occupation. In addition we deem necessary to consider specific

forms of employment such as incomplete workdays, and think over efficient measures to

supervise employers and compel them to address the needs of women with children adequately

and attentively”67.

The ideas of state support of working women voiced by D. Medvedev in Novosibirsk did

not emerge by accident or spontaneously. Back in June 2007, addressing the All-Russian

meeting of social workers, Vice-Premier D. Medvedev highlighted the following, “One cannot

raise the birthrate without protecting women’s rights. Birth of a child brings problems for

working mothers. The Ministry of public health and social development also proposes flexible work

hours or short work days”68.

In late March 2007, at a meeting of the Presidium of the Council for the implementation

of priority national projects and demographic policy under RF President, D. Medvedev, curator

of the national projects, voiced the same idea and underlined that “support of motherhood” was

the state’s key objective, and commissioned relevant ministries to “propose meaningful

solutions” for employment of women with little children69.

Ideas related to protecting women’s labor rights were most comprehensive and realistic

among those proposed during the 2007-2008 election cycle, and D. Medvedev was perhaps the

only candidate displaying intention to identify problem points of the “women’s agenda”. He was

evidently trying to incorporate the “women’s agenda” into overall state policies of

implementation of priority national projects including the demographic project.

67 Ibid68 See: reported by the website “Vesti-ru”: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=12474169 See: published by “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, March 29, 2007, http://www.rg.ru/2007/03/29/medvedev.html

70

How did he define the goals of priority national projects? Can one identify any gender

aspects in these definitions? On the very eve of the voting, on February 28, 2008, D. Medvedev

defined these goals at the meeting of the Council for the implementation of priority national

projects and demographic policy under RF President: “National projects is not a onetime

measure; as indicated by Vladimir Vladimirovich, this is our long-term policy. Investments in

people, their education, health and quality of life have turned into a key national development

concept. Now, we are developing a new social policy linked to the national projects – the policy

of developing the human potential in order to open up broad and equal opportunities for our

citizens’ self-realization”. This gender neutral definition allows for at least two interpretations;

one, the formula “broad and equal opportunities for our citizens’ self-actualization” covers both

men and women, or two, that similar to any concept of liberal universalism it addresses only one

universal subject – a male subject. For this reason, the definition asks for clarification.

D. Medvedev’s meeting with mass media of the Siberian Federal District on February 15,

2008, in the framework of the Krasnoyarsk economic forum helped clarify his approaches to

women’s civic and political subjectness. During the meeting, a reporter of the “Enisey-Region”

TV channel asked the candidate for RF Presidency the following question, “In the acting Cabinet

of Ministers two key positions were allotted to women. Are women-ministers better? How many

more women does the government need to feel happy?” D. Medvedev’s answer was as follows,

“At the minimum, female ministers are prettier and thus beautify any cabinet meeting. In

addition, they are attentive and able to concentrate on isolated problems. However, I am not the

one for gender quotas, as one cannot imagine anything more stupid. Women similar to men

should prove their ability to work in leading positions by their merits, but not by quotas, though

there have been attempts to introduce such quotas in several countries. Recently, the number of

women in government has dropped, and we must amend this situation”70. The answer is

ambiguous. On the one hand, D. Medvedev does not oppose women’s participation in decision-

making on the government level and commends their professional qualities. On the other hand,

he resolutely denies the significance of gender equality as a legal guarantee of promoting women

to “top” state politics.

Let us make an attempt at a gender sensitivity test of D. Medvedev’s short election

statements. First, D. Medvedev was evidently much more susceptible to “women’s agenda” in

Russia than any other candidate in this group was. Contrary to other contenders for RF

Presidency, he was definitely concerned about the main issue, namely, how the state can and

should help women combine family duties and child education with professional activities.

Second, for D. Medvedev, similar to other members of this campaign, introduction of gender

70 ZABINFO.RU, 18.02.2008 - http://zabinfo.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=43637

71

equality as a major democratic development trend has not yet become a subject of serious

political contemplations.

х х х

In the midst of the 2008 presidential campaign, similar to 2004 and 2000 elections, the

Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations conducted a special campaign around

the “Appeal to candidates for the post of President of our country” that had already become a

tradition. During the campaign, the Consortium drafted and sent to all major Presidential

contenders a special open letter in the hope of receiving their feedback. The campaign served

several goals. Primarily, the Consortium’s “Appeal” was to remind the candidates that the RF

Constitution contained a legal norm about equal rights and freedoms for women and men, and

equal opportunities for their realization, and that they may become guarantor of its compliance in

case of winning a victory. A newly elected President in one or another way should comply with

this norm. On the other hand, feedback to the “Appeal” (or absence thereof) could help clarify

the candidates’ attitudes to the practical realization of this norm in our country. Last, the

candidates answers (or absence thereof) were called to reveal their readiness (or lack thereof) for

a dialogue with women’s organizations.

In general, the 2008 Appeal was identical to the one sent to contenders for the top

government mandate during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Slight editing, most in

the spirit of the time, did not conceptually affect the issues identified back in 2000. This allows

for comparing the answers provided by candidates for RF Presidency since the year 2000, both

qualitatively and quantitatively. Before making comparisons, see below the text of Consortium’s

2008 “Appeal”.

CONSORTIUM OF WOMEN’S NON-GOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS

“To candidates for RF Presidency in the 2008 elections

Dear (name of candidate for RF Presidency) …

We appeal to you on behalf of Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental

Associations – an all-Russian union of over 160 women’s organizations from 52 regions of

Russia. For over 15 years, the Consortium has advocated for Russian women’s rights by a

72

variety of means, among them direct appeals to candidates claiming the top state position in

Russia. We first applied to candidates for RF presidency during the 2000 elections and repeated

the appeal prior to the 2004 elections. Several candidates responded to our questions both in

2000 and in 2004. After their analysis, the Consortium provided recommendations to our

activists about candidates deserving support as politicians that display consideration for

women’s interests. During the current Presidential campaign, we want to ask you the same

questions in order to understand to what extent your position meets our expectations.

You aspire to occupy the post of President of Russia, where women make up 53% of the

population, 48% of those employed in the national economy and majority of your constituency.

As you know, RF Constitution guarantees equal rights and freedoms for women and men, and

equal opportunities for their realization (Article 19, p.3). However, in practice, this

Constitutional principle is not observed.

Nowadays nearly all negative social phenomena in our country – unemployment,

poverty, diseases – have a “female face”. Employers choose to fire women and hire men;

women’s professional and career status is lower than men’s status despite the fact that they are

better educated and professionally trained. It results is a deep gap in salaries and, consequently,

in pension provisions between men and women. By official data, average “female” salaries in

our country make up 50-60% of “male” salaries. In many industries, the gap is much deeper.

There is no justification for low salaries in “budget spheres”, primarily social ones (public

health, education, culture, social work) with predominance of working women.

Women-workers have to combine professional activity with family and motherly duties.

Modern Russia contrary to the Soviet Union or developed democratic countries does not have

any policy aimed at alleviating the women’s burden. It is indicative that until recently, it has

ignored the necessity of developing a network of pre-school institutions and schools; nowadays,

Russia is short of one million places in kindergartens.

We assume that this state of things largely relates to women’s low representation in

governing structures. There are no women-heads of republics, mayors of large cities or

governors, with the only exception of Valentina Matvienko, S.-Petersburg’s Governor. There are

only two women – members of the Russian government. Тhe legislative power in Russia also has

a distinct “male” profile: there are about 4% of women in the Federation Council; 14% of

women in the State Duma; in local legislatures of RF subjects there are on the average 9-10% of

women, while in some there are no women at all.

Russian women’s organizations are seriously concerned with this state of things. We are

convinced about the need for special measures to prevent women’s discrimination. Most urgent

of them is the development of special government programs aimed at ensuring real equality

73

between women and men in labor and employment; also, the adoption of a special amendment to

the laws “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma” and “On Basic Guarantees of Suffrage

and the Right to Referendum of RF Citizens”, stipulating for special procedures aimed at

prevention of women’s discrimination in politics.

The easiest and no-cost version of such amendment may refer to the constitutional norm

of equality between men and women and a similar provision of the acting law “On political

parties (Art.8, part 4) that could stipulate:

ban on registration by the Central Election Commission of parties, which candidate lists

contain over 70% of persons of one gender.

We would like to knoq if you are ready to support this legislative initiative. In addition,

do you intend in case of victory in Presidential elections to take other measures aimed at

preventing women’s discrimination?

Your reply as well as refusal to provide a feedback to our Appeal will be placed on

Consortium’s website and sent to all women’s non-governmental organizations.

Sincerely yours,Elena Ershova,President, Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations

List of Consortium member organizations attached”.

Obviously, the “Appeal” is a serious document drafted by an institution of evolving civil

society that took upon itself the responsibility for protecting women’s rights, and for this reason

quite naturally strives for a dialogue with persons claiming their readiness to be in charge of

Russian state policies. How did these people react to the “Appeal”? At first, let us look at

“quantitative” indicators of this campaign. In 2000, four out of 12 candidates provided written

feedback to the similar “Appeal”, among them V. Putin, S. Govorukhin, V. Zhirinovsky, and

E. Pamfilova. A representative of G. Yavlinsky’s election headquarters called the Consortium

and said that one may consider the article in “Komsomolskaya Pravda” cited above as

“Yabloko” leader’s response. G. Zuganov, KPRF leader, did not provide any feedback to the

“Appeal”. Thus, in 2000, five among 12 contenders for RF Presidency (actually, most real ones)

deemed necessary to start a dialogue on gender equality with a women’s public organization.

In 2004, two out of ten nominated candidates provided written responses to the

Consortium’s “Appeal”, among them S. Mironov, then candidate of the Russian “Party of Life”

and Chair of the Federation Council, and O. Malyshkin, LDPR candidate and member of the

LDPR faction in the RF State Duma. Representatives of V. Putin’s election headquarters

answered orally that they were contemplating over the “Appeal”. G. Zuganov, KPRF leader and

candidate, again ignored the “Appeal”.

74

In 2008, the situation with the Consortium’s “Appeal” was as distressing. Representatives

of D. Medvedev’s headquarters claimed the response was under consideration. The KPRF

candidate, similar to two previous occasions rejected the dialogue with the woman’s

organization. Candidate A. Bogdanov in no way showed his worth. The only person to send a

written feedback to the Consortium’s “Appeal” was V. Zhirinovsky, LDPR candidate. However

paradoxical it seems, this response again confirmed that only LDPR candidates were always

ready to provide feedback to such “Appeals”, the LDPR that works with public organizations

seemingly less than other parliamentary parties and that does not support gender equality on the

program level.

Now, let us analyze the “qualitative” or substantial aspect of these responses. Being

aware of historical significance and limited circulation of these documents, we shall go into

some detail. We consider the candidates’ responses as landmarks, and for this reason will cite

them in full to let readers perceive semantic meanings on their own.

Let us go chronologically and start with responses provided by candidates of the 2000

presidential elections. The top one on the list is the “Response” provided by the second elected

RF President, to be more exact – by his headquarters.

“Responseby Vladimir Putin

to the appeal of the Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations to candidates for Presidency.

Public reception office of the candidate for the post of President of the Russian Federation

V. V. Putin

Dear E. Ershova!

We have received and considered your appeal.

One must admit that your criticism is in many respects justified. There are many

unresolved problems identified by you, and others as well.

We are convinced that your support in the elections and out joint works towards

eliminating these drawbacks and mistakes will help us not only eradicate them but also

determine more efficient ways of our country’s development.

Deputy Head

Brusov S. D.”

75

This text obviously does not provide any substantial answer to issues raised in the

“Appeal”, but V. Putin’s headquarters did realize that one cannot ignore the “Appeal”. The

readiness to negotiate with women public organizations is also significant.

E. Pamfilova, another candidate for RF Presidency, sent a much more comprehensive and

substantial answer. Here is the text:

“Dear Elena Nikolaevna!

Dear representatives of the Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations!

We are pleased to greet you as the most advanced part of our female citizens in charge of

the noble mission of protecting Russian women’ interests.

We consider you not only as people oriented at high humanitarian standards, not only our

proponents in building civic society and establishing democratic values, but also as our fellows

in protecting women’s rights. The “Women’s rights” chapter of our Presidential program

addresses our views on these problems. We assume that one of the tools of saving Russia is

involvement of our women’s creative and social potential. We shall oppose women’s

discrimination in power echelons and in the labor market, work towards introducing tools to

collect not symbolic but real alimony after the divorce, attempt to reform the law enforcement

system that in practice does not protect women from sexual and family violence, and address

many other problems that prevent Russian women from attaining real not declared equality.

We are ready to consider the proposed amendments to the Law on elections and help

their promotion. However, as you rightly mentioned, modern politics is, unfortunately, a male

club, and my extensive parliamentary experience prompts that it will take us years to introduce

these amendments. This is a long-term program, but together, we shall implement it without fail.

Sincerely,Candidate for Presidency of the Russian FederationElla Pamfilova”.

Stanislav Govorukhin, one more candidate for RF Presidency in 2000, sent an informal,

sincere and comprehensive answer to the Consortium’s appeal. We are citing it in full.

76

“ELECTION HEADQUARTERS of registered candidate for RF Presidency

S. S. GOVORUKHIN

To: Coordinator,Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations, Ershova E.

Dear Elena!Thank you very much for addressing me and for sharing your confidence. I deeply

respect women and just love you all, and I feel ashamed that we, men, cannot ensure a decent life

for you so that you do not need to go into politics and experience humiliation and inequality.

One cannot resolve the issue of inequality in politics by adopting a special amendment to

the Law on elections. I think that we need to create social and economic conditions for women’s

self-realization in all spheres of human life, and primarily – to create conditions for motherhood,

women’s full-fledged, quiet and primordial role. The future of Russia depends on you, our dear

women, and our future well-being, including politics depends on what our children will become.

You know quite well that the ban on party registration will not decrease the number of

existing parties, and women are not forbidden to establish their own parties without men.

However, I would support the idea to stop the funding of “male” organizations that treat women

badly or else indifferently. As President, I would raise the number of women in power structures.

With love and respect, Your candidate, S. Govorukhin”.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky had been in regular correspondence with the Consortium of

Women’s Non-Governmental Associations since 2000, and this time he sent quite a sly answer

to the first appeal addressed to him. In between the lines, one may read both his willingness to

find support among members of women’s organizations, and the desire to undermine their ideological

foundations. Here is the text:

“Coordinator, Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations,

Е. ЕRSHOVA Dear Elena!

I am pleased with the attention of the fair half of the population of Russia that you

represent and express in the Appeal as Coordinator of the Consortium of Women’s Non-

Governmental Associations.

First, let me assure you of my consistent support of the principle of equal rights and

opportunities for women and men. At that, I cannot agree with you in that Article 19, part 4 of

the RF Constitution is violated in Russia. There is no women’s discrimination in politics.

77

Women constitute majority of voters, and they express their will by electing men to legislative

bodies. They do not want to elect women, and cast ballots for men. Women love men more than

they love women. Most women do not wish to dominate, they want to obey, and they need

kindness, care, a family and a beloved husband.

Only women lacking male attention want to self-assert in some equality; charming

women rule over men without any constitutional provisions.

I definitely do not wish to support proposed special amendments to the Law on elections.

Speaking about gender discrimination as you suggest, ban on registration or funding of

organizations that contain over 70% of persons of the same gender will bring harm primarily to

women’s organizations with no male members.

This is why I stand for women’s organizations and movements. Establish your own

political parties, nominate women as candidates for RF Presidency, and in case all women

support them, they will win.

However, introducing quotas and issuing orders means violating democracy and

preventing citizens, including women from expressing their will.

All the best to you, and I want to wish good health, love and happiness to all women in

Russia.

Sincerely yours, Vice-Speaker of RF State Duma V. Zhirinovsky”.

Now, let us move to feedback provided by presidential contenders during the 2004

election campaign. As a reminder, during previous parliamentary elections, the programs

presented by some political parties contained special sections or random statements about gender

equality. How did this fact influence presidential contenders’ feedback to the Consortium’s

Appeal?

Let us look for an answer to this question in the letter sent to the Consortium by Sergey

Mironov, candidate of the Russian “Party of Life”, Chair of the Federation Council.

“Dear Elena Nikolaevna!

The Russian “Party of Life” closely cooperates with various women’s organizations,

among them the public and political union “Women’s movement for healthy nation”, “Russian

union of women of the Navy” and others that stand for women’s rights and more active role in

public life and in governing positions in our country.

78

Women’s representation in various power structures, in our opinion, should be much

higher, and women’s role in politics should be much more significant.

We are ready to support legislative initiatives directed against women’s discrimination,

and to work together towards identifying practical tools for realization of women’s constitutional

rights.

However, the proposed amendments to the draft law “On state guarantees of equal rights

and freedoms of women and men, and equal opportunities of their realization in the RF” need a

revision.

These amendments, as they stand now, have a prohibitive nature and restrict the rights of

certain parties, public and political movements only because they violated the gender equality

principle and the acting legislation of the Russian Federation.

Hopeful for fruitful cooperation, also in the legislative sphere.

Leader, Russian Party of Life

S. M. Mironov”.

O. A. Malyshkin, another candidate for RF Presidency and a member of the LDPR

faction sent the following letter:

“Dear Ms President!

As a member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, I

fully support your suggestions.

However, I assume that women in the Russian Federation are less involved in the

political life of our country not due to discrimination, but because by their intellect women

surpass the male part of our population and deliberately avoid involvement in the political life of

our country.

I also think that one cannot change the situation by restrictive measures.

The only way out of the situation is more active women’s participation in various

organizations in order to influence political and economic processes in our country.

Respectfully,

О. А. Malyshkin”.

These two replies received by the Consortium in 2004 differ stylistically but not

fundamentally. Both candidates in general approve women’s organizations proposals, but…

79

“But” conceals not only doubts about the practical implementation of these proposals but also

the lack of serious intentions to change the existing gender order.

Last, here is the official reply to the 2008 Consortium’s “Appeal” from V. Zhirinovsky,

candidate for RF Presidency and LDPR leader:

“Dear Ershova Elena!

I have received your Appeal, and feel grateful for your time and sharing ideas and

suggestions.

LDPR has repeatedly submitted and still submits proposals, also related to social issues,

in order to improve the situation in our country,.

We, in LDPR, attentively analyze the incoming mail, and share it with analysts and

members of the LDPR faction in the State Duma. Many issues raised in people’s appeals become

topics for debates at plenary meetings of the RF State Duma.

Thank you for constructive proposals, members of the LDPR faction will consider them

and propose as legislative initiatives.

Sincerely,

V. V. Zhirinovsky”.

We would like to draw our readers’ attention to this letter from the LDPR leader: its style

is much more formal than back in 2000. It is common knowledge that V. Zhirinovsky is a

politician with a strong feeling to opinions “on the top”. His 2008 reply is a certain mark of

changing moods and approaches of the political elite to issues of interest for us.

What is the overall result of the special campaign “Appeal to candidates for the post of

President of our country” conducted by the Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental

Associations in the course of three election campaigns – in 2000, 2004 and 2008? In our opinion,

the feedback to the Consortium’s “Appeal” vividly demonstrates radical differences among

leading Russian politicians – candidates for RF Presidency, in interpreting the constitutional (i.e.

agreed upon and incorporated into the fundamental national legal document) norm of equal

rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for women and men. Also, of interest are changes in

these interpretations – both in contents and in intonation – with each election campaign. The

diversity of candidate’s assumptions and opinions is enormous – from readiness to promote

actively the establishment of this constitutional norm as daily practices (several replies in 2000)

to its full negation and, more frequently, concealment during the 2008 campaign.

What does that mean? Actually, only two things: first, candidates for the top state

position that in case of their victory shall serve – let us repeat ourselves – as “guarantors” of the

80

acting Constitution, have vague ideas about real democracy, human rights and, consequently,

women’s rights. Second, they in principle are not too concerned about these issues and the

necessity to observe the fundamental law of our country, and treat its provisions not as guidance

but as good intentions. Voters do not demand it and cast ballots for them in a disciplined manner.

However, judging by various public opinion polls, nearly two thirds of our compatriots

contrary to top-level politicians are aware of unequal chances of men and women in politics71.

The same two thirds are convinced that women’s representation in power structures should be

equal to men. By way of proof, here is the data provided by one of most trustworthy public

opinion services, “Levada-Center” on February 8-11, 2008, the eve of the presidential

elections72. The public opinion poll revealed our compatriots’ attitudes to women’s involvement

in politics. One of the questions was, “Do you approve of women’s involvement in politics?”

68% of respondents answered in the affirmative, and only 23% in the negative. Another question

was as follows, “Would you want Russian women to hold top state positions on the par with

men?” 67% of respondents said yes, and 28% no. It is worth noting that respondents’ answers

differed depending on their gender. Thus, there were 59% of men and 76% of women among

those in favor of women’s involvement in politics, while 33% of men and only 15% of women

spoke against it. 53% of men and 72% of women were in favor of women in top state positions,

38% of men and 20% of women were against it. Such gender disparity in a way testifies that

women begin to realize their discrimination in politics. On the other hand, the poll showed that

women’s involvement in politics finds most response among 25-39 year olds, people with

university education and sufficient income to purchase durable objects or real estate, residents of

Moscow or big cities, i.e. among most dynamic segments of the Russian population.

The poll again reiterates that Russian citizens are potentially ready to approve the

delineation of political responsibility among men and women and the democratic gender order.

However, as seen from the campaign “Appeal to candidates for the post of President of our

country” conducted by the Consortium, the modern political elite – leaders of large political

parties, do not tend to contemplate about changing the current rules of the “gender game”.

3. Gender results of the 2007-2008 election cycle

On March 2, 2008, 70,28% of voters supported Dmitry Medvedev in the elections of the

President of Russia. The breakdown of remaining votes was as follows: Gennady Zuganov,

71 See, in particular, collective monograph released by the Center of political culture and political participation (Institute of Social Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences) under the direction of S. V. Patrushev “Power and People in Russia: renovation of daily practices and options for universal institutional order”, M.: ISPRAN, 2003. P.89.72 See: http://www.polit.ru., March 7, 2008.

81

KPRF leader, won 17,72% of votes; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, LDPR leader – 9,35%; Andrey

Bogdanov, “a self-nominated” candidate – 1,3%. On May 7, after the inauguration, Dmitry

Medvedev took up presidential duties. Thus, the 2007-2008 election cycles were over.

How do gender results of this election cycle differ from previous election campaigns that

we monitored? They turned out more contradictory. On the one hand, on the wave of the latest

election cycle the number of women-members of the Fifth RF State Duma and of its governing

bodies has slightly increased.

It is indicative that on the eve of the elections, women’s positions in the Russian

government also slightly improved. As a reminder, the government nominated soon after 2003-

2004 elections did not include a single woman. In the acting government, two women – Elvira

Nabiullina and Tatiana Golikova – hold key positions of Minister of social and economic

development and Minister of public health and social development.

After the elections, the number of women in leading positions in the Administration of

RF President slightly rose. In addition to Larisa Brycheva and Dzhakhan Polliyeva that retained

their posts as aids to the President, President’s press attache Natalia Timakova and Chief of

Protocol Marina Yental’tseva are now in high executive positions in the Administration.

Observers noted at once that the renovated President’s Administration had a young female

profile.

However, these are particulars and details. The main point is the absence of serious

institutional changes in Russian politics. Meanwhile, three gender surveys of federal level

election campaigns in Russia clearly demonstrated that lack of legalization of the gender equality

principle by relevant election legislation norms is still the main barrier on the way to women’s

integration in politics.

D. Medvedev, President of our country, stated soon after his election that legal nihilism

in Russia is its most acute development problem. In this context, it is appropriate to recollect that

despite numerous international agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (including a recent

document – “Optional Protocol to the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination

against Women” approved by the State Duma on June 2, 2004), there are no national

machineries or procedures to serve as legal and practical guarantors of observance of the

constitutional principle of gender equality, also in the elections.

Serious pubic debates around these problems are also non-existent. In their absence,

adopted political decisions do not match daily practices that determine social realities. This

means that the existing situation is not resolved but driven inside and may burst open in

unexpected spheres and areas. For instance, amid legal exposure and gender discrimination

women may “suddenly” stop procreating, refuse to bring up children, delay marriages for later or

82

else avoid marriage registration. Noted experts argue about the family and demographic crisis,

but the main issue is the necessity of a full-fledged and guaranteed observance of rights of

women and men.

In our previous research, we attempted to learn who suffers from unequal chances of

women and men in decision taking, which directly proceeds from infringement of women’s

positions in the election process. Unfortunately, the recent monitoring confirmed that the

conclusions based on the 2000 and 2004 data, have not lost validity with time. Then, we

highlighted the fact that gender misbalance in power structures affects negatively everyday lives

of Russian women – their wages, pensions, child allowances. This situation is still in place.

On the other hand, we argued that women’s low representation, or marginality in politics

results in the reproduction of traditionalist and “loyalist” political culture, not civic or

democratic. Owing to women’s estrangement from politics that most women consider alien and

far from their life interests, their political behavior is normally determined not by rational choice,

but by fits of passion, stronger conformism, lack of desire to contemplate about what happens

somewhere else, outside their everyday life. At that, women in Russia are major “culture beams”

and key agents of socializing younger generations, and in doing so they inevitably transfer these

“loyalist” norms. With this in view, one may realistically assert that gender inequality in politics

is in fact one of major obstacles or blocs on the way of democratic transformation of Russia.

One finds it hard to explain why parties that call themselves democratic never raise these

issues at least for practical reasons, in order to win over voters. Obviously, in this case the male

domineering logic outbalances the pragmatics. By the highest standards this logic motivates their

political choice more significantly than the informed necessity to consider and advance modern

democratic principles, among them the principle of equal opportunities for political involvement

for all citizens irrespective of their gender, and to treat women’ equal representation in power as

an indicator of justice and social equality.

Another general conclusion based on gender monitoring of two previous election cycles

also remains true. As long as gender asymmetry predetermines the manner of government

decision taking, which is a notorious fact, Russia will remain a traditionalist country where the

law of strength – male strength – visibly outbalances the force of law.

83

CHAPTER 4. Voting behavior: Gender disparity attributes and sustainability

The concept “gender disparity” as applied to political processes means considerable

differences in voters’ – both men and women – behavior, and discrepancies in their political

views, convictions, values and political preferences. Gender disparities emerge because

historically, women obtained the right to vote much later than men did, and it took them long to

“learn” how to use it. Women gradually got used to going to the polls, determining “their”

candidates and “their” parties, voting according to their interests, etc. Researchers rightly

highlight that after obtaining suffrage only up to one third of female voters used the opportunity

to cast ballots. Until our times “in many countries of the world fewer women than men take part

in the election, however, here and there differences are practically non-existent”73. Initial

manifestations of women’s voting activity testified that they made more conservative choices

than men did. Several decades later, their choices became more complicated and diverse. In the

West, working women frequently prefer leftist, social-democratic parties as they more often

address women’s “agenda” in their programs and state policies, and more actively help women

join public activities and make a political career.

Gender disparities considerably affect both the nature and results of elections. Gender

disparity parameters mostly depend on gender sensitivity of the legislation, peculiarities of

national political culture and public and political development trends. R. Inglehart, a guru of

American sociology, rightly notes that in explorations of voting behavior gender differences are

not attributed such significance as class or religious differences, however, they seriously affects parties’

electoral policy74.

For Russia, gender peculiarities of voting behavior are a new issue. Gender dimensions of

politics as such have come to the fore only after “Women of Russia” social and political

movement emerged in the political arena75. Since then, official statistics, public opinion polls and

the experts’ corps have gradually taken into account voters’ gender heterogeneity76. Our

monitoring of the 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 election cycles77 also addressed gender disparity in 73 See Giddens A.. Sociology. M.: Editorial URSS. 1999. P.30974 See: Inglehart R., Norris P.. The development theory of the gender gap: women and men’s voting behavior in global perspective // Revised version for the international politics science review special issue on women in politics. Institute for social research. University of Michigan. Мay 15, 1999. P. 475 For detail, see: Aivazova S. Russian Women in the Labyrinth of Equality. М.: RIK Rusanova. 1998. P. 126-127.76 E.g., see: Russian political parties and public associations in elections to the State Duma-95. М.: Yuridicheskaya Literatura. 1995; Meleshkina E. L. Political orientations and electoral behavior of women in Samarskaya Oblast. // Women in the Mirror of Sociology. Ivanovo, 1997. p.103-113. Adrienkova A.G. Women’s Representation in Parliaments of Russia and Ukraine. // Sotsys. 2000. №11. P.117-128.; Vardanyan R.А. Female Electorate in Russia. // Human Population. 2000. №2. P.17-25. Later research by Kochkina Е. V. Russian Electorate: Appropriation of Gender Dimensions // Gender Stereotypes in Modern Russia. М: МАКС Press. 2007. P.247-275.77 Kertman G. L. dealt with this part of the research at its first (1999) and second (2003) stages. With his consent, we shall refer to their obtained comparative results in our publication. For his conclusions, see: Aivazova S.,

84

Russian voters’ behavior in parliamentary and presidential elections. The monitoring built on the

data obtained by the “Public Opinion” Foundation prior to and during relevant parliamentary and

presidential elections. We shall also avail ourselves of the survey results, as this public opinion

company applies gender indicators in their research more often than others do.

Two previous and detailed voting behavior probes revealed several recurrent trends in

gender disparity. In this chapter, we shall attempt to verify the stability of most significant ones,

and to clarify whether peculiarities of the 2007-2008 election cycle affected these trends, and if

yes, then how. We shall also raise another issue, namely, whether in Russian conditions one may

in principle expect changes in voters’ preferences (both men and women), that can lead to

disappearance of gender disparity per se, as it happened, for instance, in Nordic countries;

according to A. Giddens, a noted sociologist, “gender differences in voting have completely

vanished”78.

1. 2007 parliamentary elections

Analysis of earlier election campaigns demonstrated that a higher level of female voting

activity was the most visible gender disparity in Russian voters’ behavior. This gender disparity

is predetermined by two factors, one objective and the other subjective. The first one takes root

in the current specific demographic situation. Women make up 53% of residents, due to which

the female electorate outweighs the male one. The second results from subjective peculiarities of

male and female voting behavior: in line with the Soviet tradition, women are more disciplined

voters than men are. One needs to note that both reasons account for the situation only when

seen as a whole. In some other countries of the world the women’s share in the population, and,

consequently, among the electorate is higher than the men’s one, but women abstain from voting,

do not go to the polls and thus do not affect election results seriously. In Russia, the voting

behavior displayed by disciplined women is a major factor of the election process.

Before demonstrating how this influence manifested and changed with every election

campaign since 1999, one needs to note that the voter turnout in December 2, 2007,

parliamentary elections reached 64% – much higher than in 2003 parliamentary elections (57%),

and slightly higher than in 1999 parliamentary elections (62%)79. As a reminder, achieving high

Kertman G. Men and Women in the Elections. Ibid. Chapters “Gender dimensions of the electorate” and “Voters in presidential elections: gender analysis”. Also, Aivazova S., Kertman G. We Elect and are Elected…Ibid. Part 2. “Voters”.78 Giddens A.. Sociology. Ibid, P. 309.79 Here and further in this chapter we shall quote the public opinion poll “Motives and factors of the electoral choice” conducted by the “Public Opinion” Foundation on 13.12.2007. The survey covered 100 settlements of 44 regions, krays and republics of Russia. Sample size - 1500 respondents. Statistical error does not exceed 3,6%. See “Public Opinion” Foundation’s website:http://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/elect/parl_el/election_2007/d074922

85

voter turnout was one of major tasks for all power structures in charge of 2007 parliamentary

elections. The elections, among other things, were seen as a symbolic referendum in support of

President V. Putin that was leaving the office, and were expected to confirm his authority as a

national leader at the head of the ruling national party. This context in many ways predetermined

not only a higher voter turnout, but other parliamentary campaign parameters.

It also affected “gender disparity” in voter turnout. In 1999, 66% of women and 59% of

men came to the polls. In 2003, this gap decreased – 58% of women and 55% of men showed

themselves as disciplined voters. In 2007, the gap in male and female voter turnout became

deeper than in 1999: 68% of women – registered voters, and only 58% of men came to the polls.

As a result, in 2007 the share of men among voters was 46%, the share of women – 54%.

Obviously, female votes turned the beam in the parliamentary elections.

How did men and women vote in 2007? What were their political preferences? Let us

turn to the survey data of the “Public Opinion” Foundation (percentage of the number of

respondents that claimed they had gone to the polls).

Question: Which party did you support on December 2 in elections to the State Duma?80

General population

Gendermale female

Shares of groups 100 46 54“United Russia” (V. Putin) 41 33 48Communist party of RF (KPRF) (G. Zyuganov, Zh. Alferov, N. Kharitonov)

7 8 6

“Fair Russia: Motherland / Pensioners / Life” (S. Mironov, S. Goryacheva)

5 3 6

Liberal-democratic party of Russia (LDPR) (V. Zhirinovsky, А. Lugovoy, I. Lebedev)

5 7 3

Agrarian party of Russia (V. Plotnikov, N. Brusnikina, V. Shandybin)

1 1 1

Union of Rights Forces (SPS) (N. Belykh, B. Nemtsov, M. Chudakova)

1 1 1

“Yabloko” (G. Yavlinsky, S. Коvalev, S. Ivanenko) 1 1 0Patriots of Russia (G. Semigin, G. Seleznev, S. Маkhovikov) 0 0 0“Civil Force” (М. Barschevsky, А. Ryavkin, V. Pokhmelkin) 0 0 0Democratic party of Russia (А. Bogdanov, V. Smirnov, О. Gimazov)

0 0 0

Party of Social Justice (А. Podberezkin, М. Leskov, V. Vorotnikov)

0 0 0

Ruined the bulletin 0 0 0Hard to answer, do not remember 4 4 3

80 According to specialists, divergences in the survey data related to respondents’ voting and official election results is insignificant and may be ignored.

86

The table data allows for several interpretations. The first and the most significant fact is

as follows: gender disparity in the number of male and female voters was 8%, but the gap in the

level of male and female support rendered to the ruling party headed by V. Putin was twice as

high due to 15% prevalence of female votes. In the previous elections, women also showed

support of the party in power, but in 2003, the gender gap by this parameter was 10%. In the

1999 elections, the gender gap in the level of support rendered to so-called ruling parties – at that

time “Yedinstvo” (“Unity”) and “Homeland”, was just 5%81 testifying to the evident trend of fast

increase of the gender gap, namely, due to female voters’ support of the ruling party.

The table testifies that in 2007, similar to 2003, KPRF and LDPR were supported more

by men than by women. For LDPR, this gender gap has traditionally been in place since its

establishment. For KPRF, the situation is quite new: only in 2003, KPRF lost the support of

women that had actively voted for it. In 2007, voters’ distrust in this party turned into a trend.

Another fact is also important. In the 2003 elections men supported not only the ruling party but

also other parliamentary parties more frequently than women did. In aggregate, KPRF, LDPR

and “Homeland” won the support of 39% of men vs. just 25% of women. In 2007, this gender

gap decreased sharply: 18% of men vs. 15% of women voted for KPRF, LDPR and “Fair

Russia”.

On the other hand, in the previous parliamentary elections the female voting behavior

was neither utilitarian nor pragmatic; women cast ballots for parties with slim chances of getting

to the Duma more frequently than men did. In 2003, such parties won the support of 23% of

women vs. just 18% of men. In the 2007 elections, this trend evidently faded: judging by the

table above, these parties enjoyed the support of 3% of men vs. 2% of women. These indicators

reflect overall trends of the 2007 parliamentary elections, when, by official data, only 10% of

voters supported parties that did not win seats in the Russian parliament. 90% of voters

supported parties that overcame the 7% barrier and formed State Duma factions. In 2003, only

70% of voters provided support to parties-favorites of the election campaign, while 30%

supported outsiders. The voters’ behavior becomes more pragmatic, and thus they support

monopolization of the political domain by the ruling party. At that, women play a more

significant role than men. By way of proof, see respondents’ feedback to the following question.

Question: Because of the elections, “United Russia” will hold over two thirds of seats in the State Duma. Do you consider right or wrong that adoption or non-adoption of any law

will fully depend on the attitude of only one faction, namely, “United Russia”?

General populationGender

male male

81 Aivazova S., Kertman G. We Elect and are Elected… Ibid, P. 51; Aivazova S., Kertman G. Men and Women in the Elections. Ibid, p. 27

87

Shares of groups 100 46 54Right 37 36 39Wrong 29 34 24Hard to answer 34 30 37

The table shows a slight difference between the number of men and women that

answered positively – women outweighed men by just 3%. However, the 10% gap between the

number of men and of women (with male prevalence) that assessed monopolization of legislative

process negatively, and the 7% gap in numbers of men and women that found the question hard

to answer (with female prevalence) is quite indicative.

The aggregate data allows for assuming that gender disparity in the level of “female”

support of the ruling party and in refusal to support opposition parties, which is on the rise with

each parliamentary elections testifies to increasing conformism in women’s voting behavior.

Does other data support the conclusion that suggests itself? For instance, how informed or

spontaneous was the choice that men and women made in 2007? See below their answers to the

question posed by the “Public Opinion” Foundation:

Question: When did you decide to vote for this party?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 46 54On the day of elections 3 3 3On the day of elections 4 4 5Last few months before elections 11 8 131-2 months prior to elections 11 10 113-6 months prior to elections 6 6 7Over six months ago 8 8 8Over six months ago 15 14 16Hard to answer 3 2 3

Thus, there were 24% of women and only 22% of men among those who always voted

for this party or decided to vote for it over six months ago. Regarding those who selected their

party shortly before the voting (from one - two months to the voting day) the breakdown was

32% of women vs. 25% of men. Shares of men and women that made a choice immediately

before the voting are practically similar. After comparing the 2007 data with the previous

elections, when women demonstrated a higher level of impulsive electoral behavior82 (48% of

women vs. 44% of men selected “their” party shortly before the voting and actually went to the

polls), one concludes that women’s choice is becoming more predetermined.

82 See Aivazova S., Kertman G. Men and Women in the Elections. Ibid, P.31.

88

This conclusion is in a way corroborated by male and female responses to another

question:

Question: Do you regret or not regret today that you voted for this particular party?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 46 54Regret 1 1 1Do not regret 57 52 62Hard to answer 2 2 3

Evidently, women prevail among those who do not regret their choice in voting for State

Duma members, though over half of men confirm their choice.

Another proof of current stronger predetermination of men’s and women’s political

preferences as compared to previous parliamentary campaigns is the survey conducted by the

“Public Opinion” Foundation on March 13, 2008.

Question: Suppose that next Sunday there will be another election to the State Duma.Which party would you support?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 47 53“United Russia” 54 46 61Communist party of RF (KPRF) 12 13 11Liberal-democratic party of Russia (LDPR) 9 13 5“Fair Russia: Motherland / Pensioners / Life” 2 1 3Agrarian party of Russia 1 1 1“Yabloko” 1 1 1Union of Right Forces (SPS) 1 0 1“Civil Force” 0 1 0Democratic party of Russia 0 0 0Patriots of Russia 0 0 0Party of Social Justice 0 0 0Another party 0 0 0Would have ruined the bulletin 1 1 1Would have skipped the elections 11 14 8Hard to answer 8 8 8

Again, the data corroborates, on the one hand, the growing influence of the ruling

“United Russia” party, on the other hand, a constantly high gender disparity level (15%) in its

support. In modern political environment, women invariably prefer “United Russia” to all other

political players, while men prevail among KPRF and LDPR supporters. In addition, there is

89

visible and peculiar gender unanimity and indifference in respondents’ attitudes to parties that

failed to win seats in the State Duma.

At that, according to the “Public Opinion” Foundation, male voters are much more

consistent absentees than female ones. In order to substantiate this thesis with relevant data, let

us refer to answers from respondents that did not turn up at the polls on December 2, 2007 (36%

of respondents). In the December 13, 2007, survey they received a special question:

Question: Today, do you regret or not regret that you did not take part in the elections to the State Duma?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 46 54Regret 10 8 11Do not regret 24 30 19Hard to answer 2 2 3

Their responses testify that male absenteeism much more frequently than women’s

absenteeism was rooted in their conscious behavior and was not provoked by a set of

circumstances.

Gender disparity was less tangible but nevertheless indicative in responses about voters’

(both men and women) susceptibility to official propaganda, mass media and immediate

environment, or their critical stance to these factors. The “Public Opinion” Foundation attempted

to figure out the level of voters’ critical attitudes to “other” opinions by a set of questions, among

them, to what extent voters considered other people’s opinions in deciding whether they should

go to the polls and which party they should support. In answering this question, women more

frequently than men admitted they considered other people’s opinions (17% of women vs. 12%

of men), and disregarded other people’s opinions (45% of women vs. 40% of men).

When asked a clarifying question, “Whose opinion matters most for you?” women

slightly more often than men said they considered opinions of family members and relatives

(12% of women vs. 9% of men); close friends and comrades (6% of women vs. 5% of men);

housemates or garage mates (3% of women vs. 1% of men). In 1999, respondents’ answers to

similar questions were practically the same. At that, one needs to note that respondents revealed

stable prejudice about expert opinions. Amazing gender similarity showed through in men’s and

women’s negative answers about the impact on their choice of recommendations provided by

politicians, people of arts and culture, sportsmen, national and regional leaders, journalists and

TV reporters.

Indirect data also corroborates the conclusion about women’s stronger susceptibility to

outside influence on their political choices made earlier in the gender monitoring. Namely, in

90

answering the “Public Opinion” Foundation’s questions women more often than men admitted

they watched the election campaign (45% of women vs. 38% of men); they also less frequently

admitted they did not watch it (53% of women vs. 59% of men). Clearly, they obtained

information about the campaign mostly from TV programs, and thus, TV management of news

much stronger affected women’s perception of the election race than men’s. G. Kertman,

analyzing similar answers from the 1999 elections rightly said that “the very predisposition

towards account for other opinions” more often demonstrated by women “helps them perceive

“pieces of advice” dissolved in the information flow”83.

On the other hand, despite female voters’ statements about close attention to the election

campaign, numerous public surveys invariably reveal that in principle, women take much less

interest in politics than men do. Thus, according to the survey conducted by the “Public

Opinion” Foundation on June 29, 2006, when asked “Some people are interested in politics,

other are not. Are you personally interested in politics or not?”, 45% of men vs. just 34% of

women responded “yes”. 52% of men and 63% of women claimed they were not interested. At

that, it is worth noting that recently, the level of political engagement has been going down much

faster among men than among women. Data of the survey conducted by the “Public Opinion”

Foundation three years before, on September 6-7, 2003, prior to the previous election campaign,

provides more evidence84. In answering the same question, 55% of men and 40% of women

stated their interest in politics, while 40% of men and 53% of women were “not interested”.

Obviously, during three years – from 2003 to 2006 – 10% of men vs. just 6% of women lost

interest in politics, which is significant for general voting behavior trends.

However, it does not change gender disparity attributes typical for Russian voters’

behavior in parliamentary elections.

83 Aivazova S., Kertman G. Men and women in the elections.84 See: Aivazova S., Kertman G. We Elect and are Elected…, ibid, P.55

91

2. 2008 Presidential elections

In 200885 presidential elections, the issue of voter turnout was even more acute than in the

previous parliamentary elections. The absence of real competition to Dmitry Medvedev

nominated by the pool of political parties and supported by the leaving President was evident to

all. Such a situation was fraught with growing absenteeism, but the fears were idle. In these

elections, the turnout was 69,7% of registered voters. At that, women’s turnout was much higher

than that of men: 73% of women vs. 65% of men showed themselves as disciplined voters. 27%

of women and 35% of men abstained from voting. Let us compare the gender disparity data with

previous presidential campaigns by the “participation” parameter. In 2004, women’s turnout was

69%; men’s – 64%. In 2000, women’s turnout was 72%; men’s – 66%. Obviously, the highest

male turnout fell on the unpredictable presidential elections of 2000, while the highest female

turnout – on well predictable 2008 elections.

During the election campaign, the share of women ready to vote for D. Medvedev always

exceeded the share of men. Thus, in the survey conducted by the “Public Opinion” Foundation

on January 21, 2008, 54% of women vs. 45% of men stated their intention to support him, while

another 17% of men vs. 11% of women intended to vote for his opponents. Eleven per cent of

men vs. 8% of women claimed they would not go to the polls. For comparison, during the

similar period of the 2004 presidential campaign, the share of respondents stating in various

surveys their intention to vote for V. Putin varied from 62 to 67% among men and from 72 to

77% among women. One week prior to the 2004 elections, 57% of men and 67% of women

planned to cast ballots for V. Putin.86.

During elections various sociological companies conducted special polls in order to learn

voters’ attitude to presidential contenders. On January 21, 2008, the “Public Opinion”

Foundation asked respondents to share their attitudes to candidates along the scale “positive”,

“very positive”, or “negative” and “very negative”. As expected, respondents displayed tangible

gender disparity. 71% of women vs. 64% of men described their attitudes to D. Medvedev as

85 In this chapter, we shall quote data of surveys conducted by the “Public Opinion” Foundation prior to and during the 2008 presidential campaign.Questions: - Did respondents take part in the presidential elections, - Which of the candidates they supported, - Why they voted in this way or did not go to the polls, - Which participants of the March 2 elections they would support if presidential elections were to take place next Sunday, were asked to the sampling of 3000 respondents (200 settlements, 63 RF subjects). Statistical error does not exceed 2,5%.The remaining questions refer to surveys with the sampling of 1500 respondents (100 settlements, 44 RF subjects). Statistical error does not exceed 3,6%. See the documents on the website www.fom.ruhttp://bd.fom.ru/report/map/dominant/dom0811/d08112186 See: Aivazova S., Kertman G. We Elect and are Elected…., ibid, P.72.

92

“positive” and “very positive”, while 12% of men vs. 7% of women, selected “negative” and

“very negative”. Respondents showed quite a strong liking – with considerable gender

disparity – also to V. Zhirinovsky. 40% of men vs. 29% of women selected positive” and “very

positive”, while 45% of men and 49% of women – “negative” and “very negative”.

Respondents’ sympathy/antipathy to KPRF leader G. Zyuganov was quite unexpected. 25% of

men and 29% of women expressed “positive” and “very positive” attitudes, while 54% of men

and 46% of women – “negative” and “very negative”. The result is unexpected, even

paradoxical, considering that in the parliamentary elections KPRF electorate included

predominantly men. What are the reasons? Seemingly, part of female electorate that quite

recently denied mass support to KPRF and its leader, still retained certain sympathy to him.

In an earlier survey on January 17, 2008, respondents were to assess, which politician

claiming the Presidential mandate had the best professional background for performing the

duties of President of Russia. Most respondents (43%) assumed that Dmitry Medvedev

possessed the best professional background for performing presidential duties; 45% of women

vs. 40% of men called his name. The second professional – Vladimir Zhirinovsky – was selected

by 9% of men and 5% of women. Gennady Zyuganov came third supported by 6% of men and

4% of women. Andrey Bogdanov did not obtain any significant support either from men or from

women. It is indicative that quite a large share of respondents – 30% of men and 33% of women

failed to assess candidates’ professional qualities.

The breakdown of answers to the question “Who of these politicians in principle could

cope with the duties of President of Russia” was practically the same, but ratios were different.

Here, 50% of men vs. 55% of women preferred Dmitry Medvedev, 14% of men vs. 8% of

women – Vladimir Zhirinovsky; 10% of men vs. 8% of women – Gennady Zyuganov. By this

parameter, Andrey Bogdanov found himself in the zero visibility zone. Nearly one fourth of

respondents – 23% of men and 25% of women failed to answer the question.

The next question – which politician was most suitable to become President of Russia by

personal human qualities rendered similar feedback from respondents – again, they put Dmitry

Medvedev on top of the list. 40% of women vs. 34% of men assessed his personal qualities

higher than other candidates’. Vladimir Zhirinovsky enjoyed the support of 8% of men vs. just

3% of women; Gennady Zyuganov – 5% of men and 4% of women. Andrey Bogdanov again

was in the zero visibility zone. However, most respondents – 38% of men and 41% of women –

“found hard” to answer this question.

Another affective question “Which politician in general produces the most beneficial

and positive impression” rendered quite impressive results. 62% of women and 53% of men

placed Dmitry Medvedev on the top of the list by this parameter; Vladimir Zhirinovsky was

93

highly evaluated by 20% of men and only 14% of women. 14% of men and 9% of women

preferred Gennady Zyuganov, while Andrey Bogdanov did not impress either men or women.

9% of men and 10% of women failed to answer this question.

In these answers, women again came out as Dmitry Medvedev’s stronger supporters than

men did. Men’s answers, in their turn, verified their stronger inclination to support Vladimir

Zhirinovsky and Gennady Zyuganov. It is evident, though, that while assessing Dmitry

Medvedev as a presidential candidate women primarily and much higher than men appreciated

the emotional effect, which he made on them as a politician. It is not by chance that respondents

(both men and women) saw no “problems” with question related to their impressions. At the

same time, while assessing candidates’ professional and even personal qualities that required the

streamlining of information and perceptions, the “hard to answer” parameter was quite

considerable, especially among women. In our opinion, this data reiterates women’s peculiar

voting behavior detected at earlier stages of our research87 and repeatedly revealing itself. One

may treat female voters as prone to affective, not rational perception of politics and politicians.

How did women and men vote in the latest presidential elections? The “Public Opinion”

Foundation” survey dated March 13, 2008, thus describes voters’ preferences.

Question: Which of candidates did you support in the March 2 elections of the RF President?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 47 53D. Medvedev 49 41 55G. Zyuganov 11 11 10V. Zhirinovsky 7 9 4А. Bogdanov 0 0 1Ruined the bulletin 1 1 1Hard to answer, don’t remember 2 2 2

Gender disparity in respondents’ answers is quite distinct, especially as far as male and

female voting for D. Medvedev, the ruling party candidate (14%). Over half of women and less

than half of men cast ballots for D. Medvedev, while his main opponents G. Zyuganov and

V. Zhirinovsky won the aggregate support of 20% of men vs. 14% of women. Men and women

supported G. Zyuganov equally. As expected, V. Zhirinovsky gained the support of twice as

many men as women. А. Bogdanov obtained a shred of support, exclusively from women. For

comparison, see results of 2004 presidential elections. Then, V. Putin won 65% of male votes

and 76% of female votes (11% gender gap). KPRF candidate N. Kharitonov obtained the votes

of 16% of men and 11% of women. LDPR candidate О. Malyshkin similar to other candidates of

87 See: Aivazova S., Kertman G. Men and Women in the Elections”, P.56-57

94

the presidential campaign obtained inconsiderable support from voters, both men and women.

Thus, in terms of figures, the positions of candidates of the acting power in the recent

presidential elections were based on a solid foundation of female electoral support.

Did Russian voters doubt their choice or did they consider it justified and felt satisfied

with voting results? According to the “Public Opinion” Foundation, most respondents (58%)

were satisfied with 2008 presidential elections, while the number of those dissatisfied was four

times as small (15%). Another 15% of respondents said they did not care about election results,

while 12% failed to express an opinion. Such considerable gender gaps are significant for our

analysis. 64% of women vs. 52% of men felt “satisfied”. Men (17%) more often than women

(13%) felt “dissatisfied” with the elections. 19% of men vs. just 12% of women felt indifferent.

At that, according to the “Public Opinion” Foundation, nearly equal shares of men and

women (about 10% of each gender) decided to vote for “their” politicians on the voting day or a

few days before, i.e. they voted on an impulse rather than consciously. At that, 28% of women

vs. 22% of men made their choice in the last weeks or one-two months before the elections.

Approximately equal numbers of men and women chose their candidate 3-6 months or over six

months before the elections. 11% of men vs. just 9% of women said they always voted for this

politician. These figures prove that awareness level in choosing candidates in the latest and

previous parliamentary elections was slightly higher among men than among women.

In return, according to surveys, women were better convinced of their choice. When

asked if respondents regretted their choice, 66% of women said “no” vs. 59% of men. Similar

trends showed themselves in respondents’ answers to the following question:

Question: In case elections of RF President attended by the same politicians take place next Sunday, for what politician would you vote?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 47 53D. Medvedev 58 50 66G. Zyuganov 12 12 12V. Zhirinovsky 9 13 5А. Bogdanov 1 1 1Would have ruined bulletin 1 1 1Would have skipped elections 13 17 9Hard to answer 6 7 6

These answers reveal stable gender disparity in voting for D. Medvedev; nearly two

thirds of female voters vs. half of male voters again expressed readiness to cast ballot for him. In

addition, as compared to those who their support for him in the presidential elections, the share

of men stating their intention to support D. Medvedev increased only by 3%, while the share of

95

women – by 13%. This means a strengthening trend of predominantly female support of the

acting President. However, gender disparity was practically invisible among G. Zyuganov’s

supporters, and grew meaningful for those who chose V. Zhirinovsky.

The same survey by the “Public Opinion” Foundation allows for comparing the level of

D. Medvedev’s electoral support and such a meaningful political behavior factor as the level of

confidence to the President by the depth of gender disparity - a most sensitive tool.

Question: Do you trust or not trust Dmitry Medvedev?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 47 53Trust 49 46 51Partially trust 23 22 24No trust 13 16 11Hard to answer 15 16 14

Comparison of “support” and “trust” parameters in the gender disparity retrospect results

in quite paradoxical outcomes. Gender disparity among those who unconditionally “trust” D.

Medvedev (51% of women vs. 46% of men) is 5%; among those who “partially trusts”

D. Medvedev (24% of women vs. 22% of men) is 2%. Both indicators are apparently lower than

gender disparity in his electoral support amounting to 16% (66% of women vs. 50% of men).

How can one interpret this spiny discrepancy in gender disparity as far as the candidate’s level of

trust and level of support? It looks as if demonstrating a very high level of D. Medvedev’s

electoral support, women in general have less trust in him than men do. This fact in reality may

mean only one thing: in choosing D. Medvedev men voted for him as a real politician, while

women supported not so much D. Medvedev per se as the power he personified in the

presidential elections. Apparently, our conclusion about female voters’ conformism that keeps

growing with every election acquires additional proof.

On the other hand, the “Public Opinion” Foundation data invariably testifies to male

voters’ stable orientation at absenteeism. In order to avoid allegations, we want to quote

respondents that did not go to the polls.

Question: Today, do you regret or not regret that you did not participate in the March 2 elections of President?

General populationGender

male maleShares of groups 100 47 53Regret 6 5 7Do not regret 23 28 19Hard to answer 2 3 1

96

Nearly one third of men and only about one fifth of women that did not go to the polls

stated that they did not regret skipping their civic duty. Among those regretting their decision,

there were slightly more women than men.

Now, let us consider the degree of male and female voters’ criticality to another opinion

demonstrated in the presidential elections, be it relatives, mass media, politicians or other

authorities, and refer to the data from the table below.

Question: When deciding if you would or would not go to the polls and which politician to support, did you consider other people’s opinions or not? If yes,

whose opinion mattered most for you?

General population

Gendermale male

Shares of groups 100 47 53Family members, relatives 22 18 25Close friends and fellows 10 8 13Noted and respected politicians 4 3 4Colleagues, co-workers, co-students, co-servicemen 4 3 4Members of government of Russia, Prime-Minister 3 3 4Housemates, dacha companions, garage mates, etc. 2 1 3Journalists, commentators, TV and radio reporters 2 2 1Favorite and recognized actors, sportsmen, people of arts and culture

1 0 2

Managers of my enterprise, institution 1 0 2Heads of region, city, district 0 0 1Other people I respect 1 2 1Did not consider 64 70 60Hard to answer 4 3 4

The first thing that strikes the eye upon attentive study of the table is quite tangible

gender disparity among those who did not consider others’ opinion in taking decisions about the

voting. 70% of male participants of the survey and only 60% females claimed they had made the

choice independently. Among those who listened to advice of relatives and family members, the

number of women was 8% higher than the number of men. Among those who considered their

friends’ opinion, the number of women was also 5% higher than the number of men. Women

accounted for opinions of politicians and members of government more frequently than men did.

Men, in their turn, slightly stronger reacted to the opinion of journalists, commentators, etc. In

other words, in the presidential elections women were more susceptible to other people’s

opinion.

х х х

Now, we shall try to consolidate observations of Russian voters’ behavior – men and

women made during gender analysis of three election cycles – 1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2007-

97

2008, and to single out most essential points. The first doubtless thing is that the analysis helped

identify quite serious discrepancies – gender gaps – in male and female behavior patterns and

political preferences. Second, Russian women’s voting behavior is largely determined by such

qualities as high degree of electoral activity, discipline and heightened susceptibility to external

influence, prevalence of affective motivation over rational, and, most important, disposition to

political conformism that is becoming more and more apparent along with the low level of

political involvement. Third, men displayed evident loss of interest in politics and inclination to

absenteeism. Last, predominantly female conformism and predominantly male absenteeism, in

our opinion, may reflect voters’ reaction to the narrowing of public politics domain during the

last decade and the reduction of the number of players thereon amid apparent domination of the

ruling party that strives to monopolize the right to determine the trends of Russia’s political

development.

3. Prospects of eliminating gender disparity

After completing 2007-2008 parliamentary and presidential elections, Russia entered a

new political cycle. This entry was accompanied by resumed political debates about the

country’s development strategy, democracy and civic society, human capital and opportunities

for personal self-realization88. Despite set parameters, the resumption of public debates was

rather positive. Rewording D. Medvedev’s famous phrase “freedom is better than lack of

freedom” one may say that debates are better than dumbness and silence. However, public

debates make sense only when they highlight the accumulated but not yet visible or displayed

public queries, among them in modern Russia – the query for gender equality in politics, without

which modern democracy will not evolve. So far, this issue has been outside public debates.

This does not mean that latent public processes in no way correlate with this topic.

“Moles of history” do their work – new social practices evolve, though slowly, certain

organizations identifying themselves with “civic society” operate within their framework, new

civic initiatives emerge, protest actions begin. Slowly and quietly, this domain sees hotbeds, or

“growth points” of a specific democratic subculture. Such organizations are not numerous, and

involve from one to two per cent of our citizens89. However, the gradually emerging subculture

leads to certain transformations; with time and subject to state support but not state antagonism,

they may substantially affect Russian political culture in general and its components.

88 One of debates over the report “Democracy: Evolution of the Russian Model” prepared by the Center for political technologies on order from the Institute of Contemporary Development, was covered by the newspaper “Vzglyad” on July 3, 2008. See:http://www.vz.ru/politics/2008/7/3/183480.html89 According to the report of the RF Public Chamber “On the Status of Civic Society in RF – 2007”.

98

In the context of our research, we are primarily interested in potential changes that would

allow for eliminating gender disparity in the political behavior of Russian citizens.

As mentioned earlier, in a number of “old” democratic countries gender disparity, for a

variety of reasons, has lost its significance for political processes. Researchers usually list such

major reasons as changed mentality of voters – men and women, caused by women’s active

involvement in activities of civic and political associations and their fast promotion to top power.

Presumably, women’s involvement in social and political life changes their “picture of the

world” and makes their political behavior more independent and rational. Are such changes also

possible in Russia, and if yes, under what conditions?

Our involvement in the research project90 and analysis of changing civic domain norms

and values in modern Russia helped outline these issues at least in the most general way. This

was quite legitimate because men and women act as equals in this environment. Regrettably,

there is no detailed gender differentiated official statistics on that score. However, the

“participant observation” methodology suggests that contrary to politics where men are in

complete control, women are involved in civic initiatives on a mass scale. Moreover, quite

frequently women play a leading role in public organizations and at times even stand at the head

of protest activities.

The small research conducted within the project framework was aimed at identifying the

dynamics of gender disparity reduction (or expansion) in proportion to women and men’s

involvement in social and political activities. This task necessitated the split of respondents into

three groups – inactive people, public volunteers that support civic initiatives and public

organizations, and political activists – people with either prior affiliation with organizations

addressing political problems or else participants of political events – rallies, meetings, etc.). In

its turn, each of the groups – inactive people, public volunteers and political activists – was

broken down by gender.

Majority of answers provided by our respondents and related to politics in general and

everyday political events and mass protests, revealed quite serious gender gaps, which

manifested themselves differently in each of the above groups. In order to provide a better

picture, let us start with analyzing answers to our most general questions.

90 Project “Social confidence networks, mass movements and institutes of political representation in modern Russia: “old” and “new” democracies under globalization” was implemented by researchers from the Institute of Sociology (Russian Academy of Sciences) under the guidance of S. V. Patrushev in 2006-2008, and supported by RGNF (project №06-03-00190а). The project included a public survey (August-September 2006) by the “snowball” methodology among 818 persons in 16 regions of Russia. Among them were 441 persons – volunteers of public and political organizations, and 377 persons not involved in civic activities. 46% of respondents were men, 54% - women (the ratio matched gender breakdown of the population of Russia).

99

Question: Are you interested in politics?(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activists

men women men women men women

Very interested 6 5 12 6 60 43

Quite interested 15 20 29 11 31 28

Not too interested 53 48 40 57 4 20

Not interested 18 20 12 19 2 8

Hard to answer 7 7 8 5 3 0

Even at first glance, the table data reveals certain gender consensus among inactive

persons: politics is of interest to few of them – only one in five men (21%) and one in four

woman (25%).

At the same time, across the public volunteers’ group the results look paradoxical. Male

interest in politics rises sharply, while women’s interest, on the contrary, drops: 45% of men and

just 17% of women from this group state their interest in politics. The gender disparity level in

this case is extremely high – 28%.

Naturally, among political activists the interest in politics is very high, as stated by 91%

of men and 72% of women. However, in this case, too, gender disparity shows itself: 6% of men

and considerably more women (28%) from this group are not interested in politics. This means

that gender parameters preserve significance for our respondents’ opinions, but the overt impact

of political activity on changing positions of women and men is also absolutely visible and clear.

This is not the only conclusion drawn from the analysis of respondents’ answers to the

easiest question in political sociology. Gender breakdown of the respondents and analysis of

gender-differentiated questions rendered quite unexpected results. It became obvious that the

transition of men first to public and then to political activities results in gradual and smooth

increase of their interest in public politics. With women, this transition looks quite different:

public activities go along with visible loss of interest in politics. The data testifies that inactive

women are more interested in politics than public volunteers and the only factor boosting their

interest in politics is women’s involvement in social and political activities. However, quite

significant gender disparity between men’s and women’s interest in politics persists in this

sphere, too.

Let us verify these results and, in particular, clarify whether the identified trends persist

in respondents’ answers to concrete questions. Among others, respondents were to say “How

difficult or easy is it for you to form your own opinion on political issues (political debates,

arguments, etc.)?” The breakdown of respondents’ answers was as follows.

100

Chart

% of respondents

19 19 18

32

8

24

48

39

49

23

42

22

16

41

12

66

33

10

18

4 5 42

8 86

11

1

7

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

male female male female male female

Inactive Public volunteers Political activists

very hard, hard neither heard no easy easy, very easy

hard to answer no data

19 18

8

19

32

24

48

39

23

4749

42

22

41

66

16

12

33

10

4 4

18

52

86

1

811

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Inactive Publicvolunteers

Politicalactivists

Inactive Publicvolunteers

Politicalactivists

male female

very hard, hard neither heard no easy easy, very easy

hard to answer no data

The chart shows that male competence rises in direct accordance with the character of

their civic activity: 22% of inactive men, 41% of public activists and 66% of political activists

easily form opinions about political issues. Again, it becomes evident that this relationship is not

linear among women: 12% of public activists and only 33% of “politically minded” women

101

easily form an opinion about political issues. This means that the social activity factor

superimposes the gender one and changes the gender impact vector: the share of women

involved in politics and feeling at ease with it rises nearly twice as compared to inactive women

and nearly three times as compared to public activists.

Inasmuch as our research focuses on analysis of election campaigns in Russia, we

naturally tried to assess the level of impact of these two factors – gender and activity – on such a

significant form of citizen political activity as parliamentary elections. Can one identify any

apparent shift in respondents’ answers from the impact of the gender factor on their choice to the

impact of their social activity (public and political)? The conclusion was based on comparison of

their answers to several questions including the following one.

Question: Nowadays, some people do not go to the polls for one or another reason. Did you vote in the 2003 elections to the State Duma?

(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women женщины

Yes 46 47 58 52 68 72No 47 42 39 34 27 18Don’t have the right to vote 6 8 4 12 5 10No data 2 2 0 2 0 0

The table data shows that slightly more men than women from among inactive

respondents claimed they did not go to the polls. Among public activists, the share of those who

went to the polls is visibly rising, though at a different speed: from 46% to 58% among men, and

from 47% to 52% among women. Simultaneously, the intention to go to the polls is growing

among political activists and reaching 68% among men and even more – 72% among women.

This data, in its turn, supports the specifics of Russian elections: there are fewer undisciplined

voters that refrain from casting ballots. The main issue, however, is that the table clearly

demonstrates how political activity levels the impact of gender factor on voter behavior. Gender

disparity among inactive and politically active men and women is far less significant than across

the whole voter corps.

Our respondents’ feedback to the question about their participation in the presidential

elections adds more evidence to these trends.

Question: Did you vote in the latest presidential elections?(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women женщины

Yes 59 60 62 60 68 70No 33 28 31 27 26 20

102

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsDon’t have the right to vote 6 11 8 10 6 10No data 2 1 0 4

The data shows that in answers to this question gender disparity across groups of

respondents are practically gone: matching groups of men and women from among inactive

citizens, public activists and political activists claimed participation in the elections. Evidently,

in this case not the gender, but the activity factor plays a more prominent role in our

respondents’ self-determination. Disparity in the level of participation in presidential elections

becomes particularly evident in comparing inactive and politically active respondents. It is also

obvious that inactive men show the highest absenteeism, while politically active women – the

highest voter turnout. This is the result of superimposing two factors – gender and activity.

The next set of questions aimed to identify our respondents level of political involvement

and interest in political parties. How did the impact of the two above mentioned factors show

itself?

Question: Are there political parties in Russia that act in the interests of people like you? (% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

Yes, there are 41 28 50 39 66 48No such parties 52 64 40 57 32 42Hard to answer 1 2 2 2No data 6 6 8 5

The table demonstrates significant gender disparity in inactive citizens’ answers: 41% of

men and only 28% of women assume that in Russia some political parties act in their interests,

while 52% of men and 64% of women answered negatively. Among public activists, the share of

men that answered positively grows by 9%, the share of women by 11% as compared to inactive

citizens. Naturally, among political activists there is a considerable rise in the share of men and

women associating themselves with in one of Russian political parties. However, it is evident

that in general, across three groups of respondents, women much stronger than men feel

underrepresented and “alien” in the political domain. In this case, public activity cannot

significantly affect gender parameters. This is quite understandable; as stated in our research,

Russian political parties really do not care much about the life of Russian women and do not list

“women’s issues” among their priorities.

Do our respondents intend to influence this situation? For instance, join the party they

like in order to strengthen it from the inside and more actively influence its choice of priorities in

103

favor of people like them? For clarification of our respondents’ views, we asked the following

question:

Question: Have you ever thought about a possibility of joining such a party? (% of the number of poaitive responses to the previous question)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

Yes 15 13 33 10 69 50No 83 81 62 2 22 35No data 6 6 6 10 9 2

Judging by the table, the overwhelming number of inactive men and women does not

plan to join the party acting in their interests. In this case, the gender factor is evidently less

significant than the public activity (or inactivity) factor. At the same time, in the group of public

activists, both gender and public activity factors appears relevant: 33% of men vs. just 10% of

women are ready to join “their” party. Among political activists, this trend is stronger: two thirds

of men and half of women are ready to join “their” party.

These indicators coupled with earlier observations of the public activity impact on

positions of men and women make us assume that men’s civic activity produces a faster impact

on their political self-determination, while the positions of women – public activists add to

strengthening their conformism. In its turn, participation in public and political activities levels

the gender impact and brings together rather than takes apart the positions of men and women.

Is there any visible switch from the value of gender factor to the value of public activity?

For clarification, we tracked divergences in respondents’ positions towards such an important

public changes indicator as accumulation of social capital. As is well known, the social capital is

based on trust in people and ensures civic activity and efficient democratic machinery. In the

research, we have made a sample probe of this indicator by asking respondents the following

question:

Question: From your experience, which of the two assumptions is more justified: one may trust in people, or, one should be careful with people?

(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

One may trust in people 26 31 35 27 46 45One should be careful with people 73 68 62 71 52 48No data 1 2 4 2 3 7

The data demonstrates respondents’ self-determination on this particular issue. The level

of social confidence among inactive citizens is similar to the average Russian indicator – nearly

25%. By our data, two thirds of inactive men and women are not disposed to trust people, though

104

among women this indicator is still higher (31%). In the group of public activists, again, the level

of trust among men grows to 35%, but among women it declines to 27%. The group of political

activists demonstrates the highest level of trust: nearly half of men and women, with minor

gender differences are willing to trust people. At that, inactive men and politically active women

are wide asunder as pole and pole: 73% of the former and only 48% of the latter say one “should

be careful with people”.

Apparently, affiliation with politically oriented public organizations and participation in

political events help not only men but also women expand their social capital of trust.

Respondents’ answers to questions aimed at identifying male and female inclinations to

authoritarian or democratic rule, i.e. the level of democratization of their public mentality, are of

particular interest for us. Among others, the following question was asked.

Question: Do you agree with the following assumption: Actual problem solutions are to be found not through debates, but due to the will and intellect of several strong and experienced individuals

(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

Agree 68 64 58 61 47 48Disagree 24 27 40 30 53 45

Two thirds of men among inactive citizens (68%) agree that actual solutions result from

activities of strong and experienced individuals, which clearly testifies to their addiction to

authoritarianism. 64% women share this viewpoint. About 58% of men and 61% of women in

the group of public volunteers also choose this answer, i.e. are more inclined to authoritarian

views. However, 10% more men than women challenge this position. Evidently, men’s civic

activity produces a faster effect on their values and migration towards democratic positions;

among women, the process is slower.

At that, among political activists, over half of men and 45% of women disagree with this

assumption, i.e. they challenge the very basics of authoritarianism. These indicators confirm our

earlier observations that the gender factor does not always predetermine political preferences.

Apparently, the choice of values depends more not on gender but on the degree of civic

involvement of citizens – be it men or women – who make this choice.

One may substantiate this conclusion by referring to respondents’ answers to another

question about their system of values along the same continuum “democracy-authoritarianism”.

105

Question: Do you agree with the following assumption: Common people should not take part in designing and adopting political decisions, but only politicians

(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

Agree 38 34 31 33 17 23Disagree 58 56 67 58 78 75No data 5 10 2 10 5 2

In the group of inactive citizens slightly over half of men and women disagrees that

common people should not participate in decision making. In the public volunteers’ group, 67%

of men disagree that common people should not participate in decision-making, while the

amount of women choosing this option is nearly 10% less. Still, over half of women support

participation in decision-making. However, their answers practically echo inactive women’s

opinions, while among men – public volunteers – this disparity amounts to nearly 10% as

compared to inactive men.

The overwhelming majority of political activists – 78% of men and 75% of women –

advocate common people’s participation in political decision making. There is an evident gap

between politically active women and women from two other groups, and their clear-cut and

democratic attitudes.

Let us try to clarify the place of such significant and landmark concepts as “freedom” and

“solidarity” in our respondents’ system of values. Do they link them together, if yes, then in what

way – in favor of unconditional freedom as the principle of liberal individualism, or in favor of

solidarity as a reliable guarantee of freedom (more exactly, a principle of the leftist democratic

subculture)?

Question: In your opinion, is there a link between solidarity and freedom?(% of the number of respondents)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsmen women men men women men

Solidarity and freedom are incompatible

8 11 35 27 5 7

Solidarity largely restricts freedom

33 21 31 28 14 18

Solidarity is the best guarantor of freedom

42 57 60 53 78 67

No data 2 8 4 2 3 7

The table testifies that in the group of inactive citizens, 42% of men and nearly 57% of

women assume that solidarity is the best guarantor of freedom, i.e. they most probably stick to

106

leftist opinions. 33% of men vs. 21% of women are more disposed towards liberalism and claim

that solidarity restricts freedom.

Among public volunteers, a much bigger share of men (nearly 60%) and a smaller (as

compared to the “inactive” group) share of women (53%) link solidarity and freedom. Only 31%

of men vs. 28% of women think that solidarity restricts freedom. Thus, a paradoxical situation

emerges: public volunteers adhere to more individualistic views than inactive women do.

78% of men and 67% of women – political activists share the opinion that solidarity is

the best guarantor of freedom. In this group, disparity in opinions between women and men is

clearly less relevant than the disparity in opinions berween women from this group vs. women-

public volunteers and inactive women.

With such diversity of opinion among men and women from different civic groups it

makes sense to clarify how satisfied they are with democratic developments in Russia. What

largely affects the level of their satisfaction – the gender factor or the public activity factor? With

this in view, we asked respondents to mark their place on the continuum of the level of

satisfaction with democracy in Russia.

Question: How satisfied are you with democracy in our country?(in points: 0 – absolutely dissatisfied, 10 – completely satisfied)

Inactive Public volunteers Political activistsMen 3,4 3,3 1,9Women 2,6 3,6 2,1

The table reveals that on the average, men displayed a rather low degree of satisfaction

with democracy in Russia, also decreasing from one group to another: from 3,4 among inactive

to 3,3 among public volunteers and to a sharp drop among politicians – 1,9.

Among women, this indicator flows differently: it is low among inactive women – 2,6,

slightly higher among public volunteers – 3,6, and goes down to 2,1 among women – politicians.

Among political activists, the gender factor (evident among inactive persons and public

volunteers) definitely loses relevance to the political involvement factor.

This subject as a conclusion to the research does not make a claim at global

generalizations. However, even the tentative and approximate analysis of changing views and

opinions of women and men about involvement in civic activities helped reveal a variety of

trends. First, our respondents clearly demonstrated that civic activity in Russia serves as a

background for changes in norms and values that take place in our eyes. These changes, among

other things, go hand in hand with considerable reductions of gender disparity in norms and

values of our compatriots and in their political choices. Second, judging by the answers,

participation in certain civic activities not specifically focused, say, on protection of human

107

rights and freedoms, affects differently the values and behavior of activists – both men and

women. Positions of men, as a rule, grow more socially-critical, while positions of women –

more compromising and conformist, which, in its turn, increases gender disparity. Third,

participation in activities of public organizations with political goals and in politically colored

civic events sharply raises relevance thereof in self-determination of our citizens – both men and

women. They move away from traditionalist gender approaches and views and reject loyalist

cultural patterns in favor of democratic values and norms, which results in nearly complete

disappearance of gender disparity.

Why do men overcome traditional loyalist political views and behavior models faster

than women do? In our opinion, the answer relates to peculiarities of traditional hierarchal

gender order prescribing to men the role of political subjects, and imposing on women the role of

plain observers, by definition excluded from the sphere of public politics. Probably, for this

reason men’s first steps in the civic activity domain actualize their “subjective” male qualities,

namely, as responsible citizens. The emergence of similar properties in women requires special

conditions and efforts both from their part and especially from the part of democratically

oriented political parties. These efforts need to focus on erosion and reformatting of norms,

values, stereotypes and ideals deeply rooted on the subconscious level and in human mentality,

which predetermine individual political behavior and political choices and dictate completely

different functions – to be either subjects or objects of power relations.

Finally, only civic involvement that presupposes the revaluation and the deconstruction

of the prescribed order can encourage women’s strive towards revealing civic potential and

public readiness to agree with claims at the role of independent citizens. In modern Russia, such

readiness is still a problem.

108

PART II

Working one’s way up

1. Women in top echelons of Russian power

(as per results of 2007-2008 parliamentary and presidential elections)

Short biographies91

Administration of RF President

Brycheva Larisa Ivanovna – aide to the President of the Russian Federation. Head of the Presidential State Legal Directorate.

Born on May 26, 1957 in Moscow. 1981 – graduated from Law Department of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov.1985 – completed post-graduate studies at the Institute of State and Law (USSR Academy of Sciences0. PhD (Law). Full State Counselor 1st

Class of the Russian Federation. Honored lawyer of the Russian Federation.

1974 – commenced her career as a consultant at the State Arbitration court of the Moscow Region Executive Committee, later as a legal consultant and senior legal consultant in Moscow enterprises and organizations. 1985-1987 – research assistant (Institute of State and Law, USSR Academy of Sciences).1987-1992 – sub-editor, then Deputy editor, “Soviet State and Law” journal.1992-1993 – senior specialist, Committee on legislation (RF Supreme Council); Head of sector, RF Supreme Council Commission on economic reform.1994-1995 – Chief of staff, office of Presidential plenipotentiary representative in the RF Federal Assembly. 1995-1999 – Deputy head, Presidential State Legal Department. Since May 1999 – Head, Presidential State Legal Department. March 2004 – appointed aide to the President, Head of the State Legal Directorate in the Presidential Executive Office. By decree of RF President D. Medvedev, on May 13, 2008, was reappointed as aide to the President, Head of State Legal Directorate in the Presidential Executive Office. Member of the Presidium and Presidential Council for the implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy. Member of the Presidium and Presidential Council for struggle against corruption. State awards include, among others, the medal of Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd Degree.

Yental’tseva Marina Valentinovna – Chief of the Presidential Protocol.

Born on January 10, 1961, in Leningrad. 1984 – graduated from Physics Department of Leningrad State University named after A. A. Zhdanov. Full State Counselor 1st Class of the Russian Federation.

1984-1991 – Engineer, Leningrad Research Institute of high frequency currents. Since 1991 – Assistant to Chair of St. Petersburg City Council’s Committee on international relations (V. Putin). 2000 – Deputy, 2002 – First Deputy Chief of Protocol of the President of the Russian

91 Short biodata was compiled from “Federal lists of candidates to deputies of the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, 2007, registered by the Central Election Commission; data from “Parliamentary Newspaper”, November 1, 2007; “Kommersant-Vlast” weekly, January 21, 2008; also Internet website http://viperson.ru/

109

Federation. April 5, 2004 – appointed Head of Protocol and Organization Directorate in the Presidential Executive Office. By decree of RF President D. Medvedev, on May 13, 2008, appointed Head of Protocol of the President of the Russian Federation. Fluent in English.

Polliyeva Dzhakhan Redzhepovna – Aide to the President of the Russian Federation.

Born on April 15, 1960, in Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan. 1982 – graduated from Law Department of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov. 1986 – completed post-graduate studies at the Institute of State and Law (USSR Academy of Sciences). Ph.D. (Law). Full State Counselor 1st Class of the Russian Federation.

1986-1990 – junior researcher, senior researcher, Head of Department of politics and law Research Center of Institute of Youth under Central Committee of the Young Communist League (hereinafter referred to as “Komsomol”) and USSR State Labor Committee. 1990-1991 – Chief analyst, adviser to the Moscow City Council of People’s Deputies. 1991-1992 – Head of Division of social and political analysis and forecast (Service of State Counselor on political issues. 1992-1993 – consultant, Presidential Executive Office. 1993-1995 – adviser, Deputy Prime Minister S. Shakhray. 1995-1997 – adviser to Director, then Executive Secretary, Vice President of Interfax News Agency. 1997 – adviser to First Deputy Prime Minister, then Aide to Head of Presidential Executive Office. October 1997 – Senior assistant to the President of the Russian Federation, head of group of speechwriters. May 1998 – August 1998 – Head of Secretariat in Prime Minister Sergey Kirienko’s Cabinet. September 1998 – Deputy Head of Presidential Executive Office. June 2000 – reappointed to this position. Facilitated preparation of President’s annual State of the Nation appeals and presentation materials; supervised desk officers and experts. After reorganization of Presidential Administration in March 2004, became Aide to the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin. By decree of RF President D. Medvedev, on May 13, 2008, was reappointed Aide to the President of the Russian Federation. Author of verses and stories. Married, has a son.

Timakova Natalia Alexandrovna – Press Attaché for the President of the Russian Federation.

Born in 1975 in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan. 1998 – graduated from Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov.

1995-1997 – political reporter for “Moskovsky Komsomolets” newspaper; 1996 – included into the Presidential pool of journalists; 1997 – political reporter for “Kommersant” Publishing House. April-October 1999 – political reporter for “News Service” (Interfax News Agency). October 1999 – January 2000 – Deputy Head of Department of Information, RF Government Office. 2000 – Deputy Head, 2001 – First Deputy Head of Presidential Press and Information Office. November 2002 – First Deputy Press Attaché for the President and Head of Presidential Press and Information Office. April 2004 – Head of Presidential Press and Information Office (V. Putin). By decree of RF President D. Medvedev, on May 13, 2008, was reappointed Press Attaché for the President. Member of the Board of Trustees of “Silver Archer”, Russian national PR award. Co-author of the book “From the first person. Conversations with Vladimir Putin”. Speaks English.

110

RF Government

Golikova Tatiana Alexandrovna – RF Minister of public health and social development of the Russian Federation.

Born on February 9, 1966, in Mytischy, Moscow Region. 1987 – graduated from Moscow Institute of national economy named after G. V. Plekhanov, major – “economics of labor”.

1987-1990 – junior research assistant, Department of salaries (Scientific and Research Institute of Labor, USSR State Labor Committee). 1990-1992 – economist 1st grade, leading economist (General Department of state budget, RSFSR Ministry of Finance). 1992-1995 – leading economist, Chief economist, then Head of Division of budget policy and analysis in State Budget Department, Head of General Department of consolidated budget (RF Ministry of Finance).

1995-1998 – Deputy Head, then Head of Department of budget (RF Ministry of Finance). August 1998 – July 1999 – Head of Department of budget policy (RF Ministry of Finance). July 1999 – July 2002 – Deputy Minister of finance, since August 2002 – First Deputy Minister of Finance in charge of departments of budget policy, social affairs and science. By decree of RF President, on September 24, 2007, appointed Minister of public health and social development, thus replacing M. Zurabov in V. Zubkov’s new Government. Retained her position after appointment of the new RF Government headed by V. Putin. By order of the RF Government dated October 6, 2007, became representative of RF Government in the Russian tripartite commission for settlement of social and labor disputes. Member of the Presidium and Presidential Council for the implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy. Member of Government Commission on administrative reform. State awards include the Order of Honor (February 2006), Order of Friendship (November 2006), medals of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd Degree (2001) and 1st Degree (2004). Married, has a daughter.

Nabiullina Elvira Sakhipzadovna – Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.

Born on October 29, 1963, in Ufa.1986 – graduated from Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov, major – “economics”. Ph.D. (Economics)

1992-1994 – leading specialist and economic consultant, Russian Union of industrialists and entrepreneurs. 1994-1996 – Deputy Head of Department of economic reform, 1996-1997 – Head of Department of economic reform, RF Ministry of Economics. Member of Collegiums of RF Ministry of economics. 1997-1998 – Deputy RF Minster of Economics. 1998 – Deputy President, Promtorg Bank. 1999 – Executive Director, Eurasian Rating Agency. Since December 1999 – Vice President in charge of national development strategy, “Strategic Development Center”. 2000 – First Deputy RF Minister of economic development and trade. June 2003 – released from her duties due to transfer to another position. Served as Head of the expert group attached to the Presidential Council for the Implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy. By decree of RF President V. Putin, on September 24, 2007, appointed RF Minister of economic development and trade. By decree of RF President D. Medvedev, on 12 May, 2008, was reappointed RF Minister of economic development and trade. By decree of RF President, on September 26, 2007, appointed member of Presidential Council on physical culture and sports, on preparation for and conduct of XXII Winter Olympics and XI Winter Para-Olympics in 2014 in Sochi. By order of the RF Government, on October 16, 2007, appointed member of the Supervisory Board of the State Corporation “Bank for development and foreign economic affairs (Vnesheconombank).” Member of Government commission on industrial, technological and transportation development; Member of the Presidential Council for the

111

implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy; member of the Supervisory Board of the Russian State Corporation of nanotechnologies; member of the Supervisory Board of the State Corporation for promoting design, manufacture and export of highly technological industrial products (Rostechnologia)”; Government commission for evaluation of efficiency of federal and regional executive power bodies; Military-Industrial commission under RF Government. By decree of RF President, on March 22, 2008, appointed Governor from Russia at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). By order of the RF Government, on April 2, 2008, appointed Deputy Chair of the Government Commission on SME development. Member of the Presidium and Presidential Council for struggle against corruption. State awards include, among other, medal of the Order for Service to the Homeland, 1st Degree. Married.

Heads of Russian regions(nominated by RF President)

Matvienko Valentina Ivanovna – Governor of St.-Petersburg.

Born on April 7, 1949, in the village Shepetovka, Khmel’nitsky Region, Ukrainian SSR. 1972 – graduated from Leningrad Institute of Chemistry and Pharmaceutics.

1985 – graduated from Academy of social sciences of the CPSU Central Committee. 1991 – completed retraining course for high-ranking diplomats at the Diplomatic Academy of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Commenced her career first in the Komsomol organization, then as Vice Chair on culture and education of the Executive Committee of Leningrad City Council.1989 – elected to the USSR Supreme Council, chair of Committee on women, family, motherhood and childhood. Entered diplomatic service in 1991 as Ambassador of the Soviet Union, later Ambassador of Russia to the Republic of Malta, and as Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Greece. September 1998 – March 2003 – Deputy RF Prime Minister on social policy, Chair of Commission on international humanitarian assistance and liaison with religious organizations under the RF Government (since November 1998). June 2003 – by President V. Putin’s decree became member of the RF Security Council. March 2003 – appointed Plenipotentiary Presidential Representative in Northwest Russia. In the pre-term 2003 elections called after former Governor V. Yakovlev’s nomination as Vice-Premier of the RF Government, stood for the position of S.-Petersburg Governor on October 5, 2003, won a victory in the second round of the elections, supported by over 63% of voters. Authorities acknowledged on December 20, 2006. Holder of diplomatic rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Member of the Presidential Council for the implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy. State awards include the Badge of Honor, Order of the Red Banner of Labor and medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 3rd Degree. Holder of the Gold Badge of Honor “Public recognition”. Married. Has a son.

Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly

Dementieva Natalia Leonidovna – Representative from State Assembly of the Mariy El Republic in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on September 6, 1945, in Kuibyshev (now Samara). 1970 – graduated from History Department of Leningrad State University named after A. A. Zhdanov, major – “historian-archeologist”.

1970-1972 – member of Sayano-Tuvinskaya expedition of the Institute of Archeology (USSR Academy of Sciences). 1972-1977 – senior consultant, Leningrad affiliation of the All-

112

Russian society for protection of historical and cultural monuments. 1977-1979 – Chief curator, “Shlisselburg “Oreshek” Fortress” affiliation of the Museum of the history of Leningrad. 1979-1987 – Head of Leningrad regional inspectorate for protection of historical and cultural monuments under Leningrad regional executive committee. 1987-1997 – Director of State museum of the history of Leningrad (S.-Petersburg), elected to this position by the work collective. Provided active support to modern arts in S.-Petersburg, allotted an exhibition site in the Peter and Paul Fortress. One of renowned events conducted by N. Dementyeva was burial of remains of Great Prince Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov in the Great Princes’ family vault of the Peter and Paul Fortress. August 1997 – September 1998 – Deputy RF Minister of culture, since October 1998 – First Deputy RF Minister of culture. June 2004 – released from her duties due to liquidation of the Ministry. Since June 2004 – Representative from State Assembly of the Mariy El Republic in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly. Authorities acknowledged anew on January 26, 2005, valid till October 2009. Member of Committee on budget, Commission on youth and sports, Commission on information policy. “Honored worker of culture of Russian Federation”, holds the medal “In memory of 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg”. Married, has a son.

Dragunkina Zinaida Fiodorovna – Representative from legislative (representative) state power bodies of Moscow in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on November 21, 1948. 1970 – graduated from Ust-Kamenogorsk State teachers’ training institute, major – “teacher of Russian and literature”.

Worked as a school teacher, then as a Komsomol organizer, Secretary of the city and regional Komsomol committees, later – Head of section, VLKSM Central Committee. 1987-1993 – Deputy Head, then First Deputy Head of the Russian Children’s Fund. Since 1993 – President of “Blagovest” International center of social assistance. Member of the Second (1997-2001) and Third (2001-2005) Moscow City Dumas, Chair of Commission on social policy, coordinator of Duma activities related to “protection of family, women’s and children’s rights”. October 12, 2005 – nominated to the Federation Council by decision of the Moscow Duma. Authorities acknowledged on February 8, 2005, valid till December 2009. Member of Committee on culture, science, education, public health and ecology, First Deputy Chair of Commission on youth and sports, Vice-chair of Commission on regulations and parliamentary activities. Member of Moscow city Charitable Council. Awards include the Badge of Honor, Order of Friendship, medal “In memory of 850th anniversary of Moscow”. Married, has a daughter.

Narusova Liudmila Borissovna – Representative from Great Khural (Parliament)of Republic of Tyva in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on May 2, 1951. 1974 – graduated from History Department of Leningrad State University named after A. A. Zhdanov, completed post-graduate course at the Institute of History, USSR Academy of Sciences. Ph.D. (History).

Since 1981 – Assistant Professor, Chair of Russian History, S.-Petersburg Academy of Culture. 1995-1999 – member of the Second RF State Duma (“Our Home – Russia” faction), member of Committee on women, family and youth. Since October 2000 – Representative of RF Government in Boards of Trustees of “Memory, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (FRG) and “Reconciliation Fund of the Austrian Republic”, Chair of Mariinsky Foundation for revival of Russia. 2000-2002 – Head of Supervisory Council of the Russian foundation “Mutual understanding and reconciliation”, since 2002 – member of the Supervisory Council. 2002 –

113

hosted TV program “Price of success” on “Russia” TV channel. Since October 2002 – Representative from Great Khural (Parliament) of Republic of Tyva in the Federation Council. Authorities acknowledged anew on May 17, 2007. Chair of Commission on information policy, member of Committee on science, education, public health and ecology. Awards include medals “In memory of 850th anniversary of Moscow” and “In memory of 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg”. Widow of A. Sobchak, former Mayor of S.-Petersburg, has a daughter.

Orlova Svetlana Yurievna – Vice speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Born on October 23, 1954, in the town Obluchye, Khabarovsk Kray. 1978 graduated from Ussuri state pedagogical institute, 1991 – from Department of economics of Khabarovsk Higher Party School, later – first courses for business women in the Academy of national economy and Finance Academy under RF Government. Ph.D. (Economy)

Worked as a pioneer leader in school, teacher in the boarding school in Vladivostok and party organizer. Since 1991 – Vice-President, Director General of women’s non-profit charitable organization “Anna” (Vladivostok). Member of the First (1993-1995) and Second (1995-1999) RF State Dumas, member of Committee on budget, taxes, banking and finance. In the First RF State Duma – member of “Women of Russia” faction, in the Second RF State Duma – Deputy Chair of the “Russian Regions” faction. 2000 –Vice president, Closed joint-stock company “Krosna” Scientific-industrial association” (Moscow). November 2001- representative of the Council of People’s Deputies of Kemerovo Region in the RF Federation Council, First Deputy Chair of Committee on budget, member of Commission on interaction with the RF Auditing Chamber and Commission on implementation of constitutional authority of the Federation Council. In May 2003, authorities in the Federation Council were extended. January 2004 – Vice Speaker of the RF Federation Council. Member of the Presidential Council for the Implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy. By decree of RF President, on September 26, 2007, appointed member of Presidential Council on physical culture and sports, the sport of records, on preparation for and conduct of XXII Winter Olympics and XI Winter Para-Olympics in 2014 in Sochi. Since 1994 – Vice-President of Far East women’s confederation. Member of the Presidium of the General Council of “United Russia”. Correspondent member of the Russian public Academy of sciences. Awards include the Badge of Honor, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd Degree, medals “In memory of 850th anniversary of Moscow” and “In memory of 1000th anniversary of Kazan”. Married, has a son..

Petrenko Valentina Aleksandrovna – Representative from Government of the Republic of Khakassia in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on August 23, 1955. 1977 – graduated from Rostov State teachers’ training institute (Rostov-on-Don), major – “teacher of chemistry and biology”; 1989 – from Rostov Higher party school under KPSU Central Committee. Doctor of Education.

Worked as secretary of the Komsomol Committee of the teachers’ training institute, instructor of Leninsky District KPSU Committee (Rostov-on-Don), Secretary, then First Secretary of Rostov Regional Komsomol Committee. 1988-1991 – First Secretary, Zheleznodorozhny District KPSU Committee (Rostov-on-Don). RF People’s Deputy (1990-1993), member of the Nationalities Committee of the RF Supreme Council, member of Committee on economic reform and ownership. After the Supreme Council dissolution in 1993, became Deputy Head of administration of Rostov Region on general issues, advisor to RF Minister of foreign affairs. 1996 – consultant, Security Service of President B.Yeltsin, later – Deputy Head, Department on interaction with Russian regions in the Main Directorate of RF President on domestic and foreign state policy, advisor to Head of Government, Deputy Head,

114

Directorate on interaction with Russian regions Office of the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly. Since April 2001 – representative in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly from Government of the Republic of Khakassia. Authorities acknowledged on January 26, 2005. Chair of Committee on social policy, member of Commission on regulations and parliamentary activities. Member of State Commission on minors’ affairs and protection of minors’ rights. Speaks Polish, Spanish and English. Holder of the order “For Valor”, Badge of Honor and three medals.

Ponomareva Larisa Nikolaevna – representative from executive government authority of Chukotka Autonomous Area in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on July 1, 1949. 1972 – graduated from Moscow Institute of electronic machine building.

Worked as assistant to Head of the RF State Committee on indigenous peoples of the North. 2000-2001 – assistant to RF State Duma member Roman Abramovich. 2001 – appointed Chief of Secretariat, apparatus of Governor and Government of Chukotka Autonomous Area. 2006 – representative from executive government authority of Chukotka Autonomous Area in the Federation Council of RF Federal Assembly, First Deputy Chair of Committee on social policy. Authorities valid till October 2010. Married, has a son.

Rogacheva Marina Georguievna – Representative from Administration of Oryol Region in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on January 22, 1965, in the family of Yegor Stroev, Governor of Oryol Region. 1988 – graduated from Oryol teachers’ training institute, major – “teacher of German and French”. Ph.D. (Psychology).

After graduation, worked as a teacher in Oryol and Moscow schools, Deputy Governor of Oryol Region – Head of Representative Office of the Governor and Administration of Oryol Region in RF Government. Nominated as representative in the Federation Council of RF Federal Assembly from administration of Oryol Region. Authorities acknowledged and valid till April 2010. Member of Committee on CIS affairs, Commission on control over performance maintenance of the Federation Council, Commission on culture. Awarded by Order of Friendship

Tkachiova Nina Vasilyevna – Representative from legislative (representative) state power bodies of Kursk Region in the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly.

Born on March 28, 1954. 1982 – graduated from All-Union extramural finance and economy institute.

Prior to March 2005, served as Deputy Head of the Government of Kursk Region in charge of social, economic and investment regional policy, licensing, pricing, small business regional policy. March 31, 2005 – appointed representative to the Council of Federation of the RF Federal Assembly from administration of Kursk Region. Authorities acknowledged, valid till March 2011. Member of Budget Committee, Deputy Chair of Commission for monitoring of performance maintenance of the Federation Council, member of Commission on natural monopolies.

115

State Duma of the RF Federal Assembly of the fifth convocation (2007-2011)

“United Russia” faction

Borzova Olga Georgievna – Chair of Committee on public health. Born on January 1, 1949, in the village Peschanikopskoye, Rostov Region.

1972 – graduated from Rostov medical institute. Ph.D. (Medicine). Honored doctor of the Russian Federation.

Worked as a paramedic in the emergency aid service. 1972-1974 – pediatrician, Caucasus Central district hospital of Krasnodar Kray. 1974-1978 – pediatrician, Children’s hospital in Nizhny Tagil (Sverdlovsk Region). 1978-1981 – pediatrician. 1981-1989 – Deputy Head physician, then Head physician (Rostov regional children’s hospital). 1992-1995 – Deputy Director, Department of public health of Rostov Region, member of Legislative Assembly of Rostov Region (1990-1994), member of the Second (1998) and Third (2003) legislatures of Rostov Region, member of Committee on social issues, law enforcement and protection of citizens’ rights. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from “United Russia”. Deputy head of “United Russia” faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on public health. Member of “United Russia” General Council. Author of numerous research papers on pediatrics and public health management. Awards include the order of Friendship, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd degree, international prize “Birmingham Torch” for survival in harsh economic conditions. Married, has a daughter.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Burykina Natalia Victorovna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.

Born on August 20, 1960, in Maloyaroslavets, Kaluga Region. Grew up in an orphanage. 1986 – graduated from Moscow Textile institute named after A. N. Kosygin, 2006 – from Diplomatic Academy under RF Ministry of foreign affairs.

Since 1977 worked at Kuntsevskaya weaving mill, then – as accountant in private company. 1991 – co-founder and Deputy Director General, “Unicon” auditing company. 2000-2003 – Head of Staff, State Duma Committee on budget and taxes. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from “United Russia”. Member of “United Russia” faction, member of Committee on budget and taxes, Commission on review of federal budget expenditures allotted to RF defense and state security Married, has one son.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Voronova Tatiana Gennadievna – member of Committee on foreign affairs.

Born on March 30, 1975, in Taishet, Irkutsk Region. Graduated from Department of economic theory of Irkutsk institute of national economy, and Far East Academy of public administration.

2000 – volunteer, then leader of the local affiliation of “Youth Unity” movement, Chief of Division of youth services, Irkutsk “United Russia” branch 2004 – elected to Irkutsk legislature, Chair of Committee on social and cultural legislation. Married, has a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

116

Gainullina Farida Ismagilovna – Chair of the Auditing commission of the RF State Duma, Deputy Chair of Committee on labor and social policy.

Born on March 28, 1947, in Kazan. 1970 – graduated from Kazan Chemical and technological Institute. Doctor of Political Sciences, professor of Academy of labor and social relations, full member (academician) of the Russian Academy of Humanities.

Since 1970 – foreman, production engineer and deputy secretary of the KPSU committee at Kazan electronic computer plant. Since 1983 – Secretary of Sovetsky District KPSU Committee in Kazan, Deputy Head of agitprop division of the Republican KPSU Committee. 1986 – Secretary of the Tatar Trade Council, then Chair of Trade Unions Federation of Tatarstan. 1999 – elected to the RF State Duma (“Homeland – All Russia” bloc), in 2003 – from “United Russia”. In the Fourth RF State Duma – member of Committee on labor and social policy. At different times, was member of “Homeland – All Russia” Political Council, Head of Tatarstan branch of “Homeland – All Russia” bloc, member of “United Russia” Central Political Council. Authored over 50 publications, among them monograph “Trade unions parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activities” and “Evolvement of social partnership system in Republic of Tatarstan”, deputy Chair of Committee on CIS problems. Married, has two daughters. Awards include the Order of Friendship, Badge of Honor, lapel badge of the Federation of free trade unions of Russia “For active work in trade unions”, Silver Badge of Honor of the All-Union Confederation of trade unions “For service to trade union movement”, Certificate of Honor of Republic of Tatarstan. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Gal’tsova Olga Dmitrievna – member of Committee on civil, criminal, arbitration and procedural legislation

Born on April 27, 1952, in the village Korenevo, Kursk Region. 1971 – graduated from Kamensk-Uralsky Aluminum college. 1978 – graduated from All-Union extra-mural law school. Honored lawyer of the Russian Federation. Since 1971 – controller, processing engineer, head of human resources division (Kuibyshev plant of communication cables). Since 1978 – instructor, Head of division in the district executive committee, then instructor, Head of division in the municipal executive committee of Kuibyshev (now Samara). 1990 – Head of division in charge of organization of work of the city council of people’s deputies. 1993 – Deputy head, Legal department of Samara Administration. Since 1998 – head of Samara Regional registration chamber, then – Department of the Federal registration service in Samara Region. Awards include the medal of Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd Degree, medal in memory of Anatoly Koni, lapel badge of RF Ministry of Justice “Honored lawyer of the Russian Federation”, mark of distinction “For merits in lawmaking”, mark of distinction “For merits to Samara Region”, Badge of Honor of Samara Regional Duma “For merits in lawmaking”, Certificate of Merit of the RF Ministry of Justice, etc. Laureate of the National public recognition award “Olympia” for Russian women’s achievements. Married, has a son.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Gerasimova Nadejda Vasilievna – Vice Speaker of the RF State Duma, member of Committee on labor and social policy.

Born on March 22, 1952, in the village Vyzhlovichi, Buelorussian SSR. 1980 – graduated from Leningrad Institute of Soviet trade

1970-1975 – loans inspector, then senior loans inspector, Senior economist in Kansk chapter of the USSR State Bank (Krasnoyarsk Kray). 1975-1988 – senior economist, then Head of division of RSFSR State Bank branch in Krasnoyarsk Kray. 1988-1990 – Deputy head of

117

Directorate – Head of division, “Agroprombank” Directorate in Krasnoyarsk Kray. 1990-1991 – Acting Director, Main Directorate of RSFSR State Bank in Krasnoyarsk Kray. 1991-1992 – Chair of the Board, “Niva” Commercial Bank (Krasnoyarsk). 1992-1994 – Chair of the Board, Krasnoyarsk regional “Rosselkhozbank”. 1994-1996 – Chair of the Board, Krasnoyarsk regional branch of “Agroprombank”. 1996-1997 – Head, 1997-2000 – Director of Department of investments and asset management of EMERCOM of Russia. 2000-2004 – Deputy Minister of EMERCOM. 2004-2005 – Director, EMERCOM Department of infrastructure development. By decree of RF President on November 24, 2005, appointed Deputy Minister of EMERCOM. Awarded with the Badge of Honor.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Yermakova Natalia Afanasyevna – member of Committee on economic policy and entrepreneurship Born on May 19, 1957, in Yurga, Kemerovo Region.

Graduated from the agrarian technical school, Novosibirsk Academy of water transport, Academy of national economy. Honored entrepreneur of the Russian Federation. Ph.D. (Economics).

Worked as accountant and economist in “Krivosheinsky” collective farm, in the newspaper “Svet Ilyicha” (“V. I. Lenins’s Torch”), in “Tomsktransgaz”. Late 1980s – established and headed “Typhoon” cooperative society that later turned into a holding company and went bankrupt in 2004. Since 1998 – Commercial, then General Manager, “TransSib” Corporation. Since 2001 – Chair of the Board of Directors, Open-stock company “Yurginsky Gormolzavod (milk factory). At the time of Duma elections – self-employed entrepreneur. Has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Zhurova Svetlana Sergeevna – Vice Speaker of the RF State Duma, member of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on January 7, 1972, in the village Pavlovo-on-Neva, Leningrad Region. 1999 – graduated from Russian Academy of physical culture. Master of physical culture. Honored master of sports.

Olympic champion in skiing (500 m) (Turin, 2006). Member of the national team of Russia since 1988. Champion of Russia (1997, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005) in multiple sprint, silver (1995, 1999) and bronze (1996) medalist of championships of Russia in multiple sprint. World champion (1996) in women’s 500 m, silver (1998-2000) and bronze (2001) medalist of world championships in women’s 500 m; silver (2002) and bronze (2001) medalist of World Cups in women’s 500 m; world champion (2005) in multiple sprint. Caps for “Dinamo” All-Russian sports society and S.-Petersburg. After winning the 2005 World Championship promoted from senior lieutenant to major of Internal Troops, after winning the 2006 Olympics became lieutenant-colonel. Professional training instructor, Main Directorate of the Federal penitentiary service in S.-Petersburg and Leningradskaya Region. Chair of Commission on youth affairs, culture, tourism, physical culture and sports in the legislature of Leningrad Region. By decree of RF President, on September 26, 2007, appointed member of Presidential Council on physical culture and sports, the sport of records, on preparation for and conduct of XXII Winter Olympics and XI Winter Para-Olympics in 2014 in Sochi. Member of “United Russia” General Council, Head of Commission of the Presidium of “United Russia” General Council on promotion of 2014 Olympics; First deputy Chair of Commission on youth policy of the Presidium of “United Russia” General Council. Laureate of the award “Career of the Year” (established by “Career” business weekly, Rodionov Publishing house) nominated for “Career in politics. For speedy conquest of political heights”. Married, has a son.

118

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Zakharova Svetlana Yurievna – member of Committee on culture.Born on June 10, 1979, in Lutsk, Ukrainian SSR.

Graduated from Kiev choreographic school and Academy of Russian ballet named after Vaganova. Honored artist of RF.

Since 1996 worked in the Mariinsky Theatre company (S.-Petersburg). Her repertoire included Zhizel (“Zhizel”), Princess Florina, Aurora (“The Sleeping Beauty”), Odetta-Odyllia (“The Swan Lake”), Masha, the Doll (“The Nutcracker”), Nikia (“La Bayadere”), Matser of dryads, Kitry (“Don Quixote”), Gulnara, Medora (The Corsair”), Maria (“The Fountain of Bakhchisaray”), Juliet, Juliet’s friend (“Romeo and Juliet”), Lady (“A Young Lady and a Hooligan”), “The Etudes”, ballets by Fokin, Balanchin, McMillan, J. Normayer, Alexey Ratmansky’s ballet “The Poem of Ecstatisy”. Since 2004 – ballerina in the State Academic Bolshoi Theatre (Moscow). Laureate of International “Vaganova-prix” contest (1995); winner of “Baltica” (1997), “Golden Floodlights” (1998) and “Golden Mask” (1999) awards; laureate of the RF State Prize in literature and arts (2006) for “talented evocation of scenic images, promotion of great traditions of the Russian ballet”, a number of other awards and titles. Since February 2006 – member of the Council on culture and arts under RF President.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Ignatova Marina Valerievna – member of Committee on economic policy and entrepreneurship.

Born on January 22, 1967, in Sumy, Ukrainian SSR, graduated from Moscow State law academy. Since 1994 – head of “Druzhba” housing cooperative.

Since 1998 – Director General, Vyazma house-building factory (Moscow Region), then – President and co-owner of “Druzhba” company grouping (construction, manufacture of building materials, agribusiness and publishing). In 2005, Procurator of the Moscow Region listed “Druzhba” among dishonest real estate developers. December 2001 – became member of the Third Moscow Regional Duma, member of Committee on economy issues and infrastructure development and Committee on land-use, natural resources and ecology. President of the Foundation for study of ancient Tuva Por-Bazhyn fortress (under the patronage of Sergey Shoigu, Minister of EMERCOM). Member of the presidium of “Opora Rossii” (“Backbone of Russia” – All-Russian public organization of small and medium enterprises). Honored builder of the Moscow Region. Came 8th among enlisted candidates to the RF State Duma (7th among elected deputies) in 2006 rating of incomes. Has three children.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Izotova Galina Sergeevna – First Deputy Chair of Committee on Federation affairs and regional policy.

Born on May 3, 1960, in Cherepovets, Vologda Region.1983 – graduated from Leningrad financial and economic institute named after N. A. Voznesensky; 2001 – from Institute of public management attached to MGIMO (Moscow State institute of international relations). Ph.D. (Economics). Honored economist of the RF.

1977-1988 – worked in Cherepovets affiliation of the USSR Stroybank and Metallurgitchesky affiliation of USSR Promstroybank (Cherepovets). 1988-1991 – held executive positions at Cherepovets enterprises. Since May 1991 – chief economist, Deputy head of the Payment settlement center, RSFSR Central Bank in Cherepovets. November 1992 –

119

October 1997 – Chair of the Board, joint-stock commercial “Sokolbank” (Cherepovets). Since October 1997 – Head of Department of finances of Vologda Region, Vice Governor of Vologda Region, member of Government of Vologda Region. Since August 2006 – First deputy Governor of Vologda Region. In September 2006, by decree of the Administration of RF President, appointed Deputy Plenipotentiary Presidential Representative in Northwest Russia (among other duties, in charge of monitoring the implementation of federal programs, priority national projects and investment projects). Head of Committee on finances of “Northwest” Association of economic cooperation regions. Married, has a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Ishmuratova Svetlana Irekovna – member of Committee on physical culture and sports.

Born on April 20, 1972, in Zlatoust, Chelyabinsk Region. 1993 – graduated from Zlatoust trade college, in 1999 – from Urals State Academy of physical culture and sports. Honored master of sports.

Professional biathlete. Since 1996 – member of the national team of Russia. Two-time Olympic champion in biathlon. Champion of Russia in sprint. Multiple world champion. Bronze medalist of the XIX Winter Olympics in relay-race in Salt Lake City (2002, USA); gold medals winner of the XX Winter Olympics 2006 in Turin (Italy) in individual ski race (15 km) and in relay-race (4x6 km). After the triumphant Olympics in Turin, was promoted by merit to major of Air Force. After completing her sports career became senior trainer at the Air Force Central Sports Club.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Kabaeva Alina Maratovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on youth affairs.

Born on May 12, 1983, in Tashkent. Graduated from Moscow college of Olympic reserves. Honored master of sports.

Professional in calisthenics, since 1996 – member of the national team of Russia. Champion of Russia, Europe and the world. Absolute winner of World Youth Games (1998), Goodwill Games (1998) and the Cup of Russia (1998). Winner in three types and silver medalist in two types of exercises at Goodwill Games (2001); Absolute champion of Russia (1999-2001), champion of Russia (2004) in hoop and ball exercises. Absolute champion of Europe (1998-2000, 2002, 2004) in individual combined events, Champion of Europe (2004) in team events. Absolute World champion (1999), winner in ribbon and ball exercises, and silver medalist in hoop and club exercises at World championship (2003). 2000 – bronze medal in calisthenics in individual combined events, Olympics in Sydney (Australia) 2002 – disqualified for one year for using stimulants, stripped of the title of champion of the world. Olympic champion in calisthenics (2004, Athens, Greece). Worked as TV program host and a movie actress. Since December 2001 – member of the Higher Council of All-Russian political party “United Russia”. 2005 – member of the RF Public Chamber. Quit “United Russia” after elections to Public Chamber. Member of Presidium of All-Russian public organization “Russian youth sports union”. Awarded with the Order of Friendship, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 4th

degree.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

120

Karelova Galina Nikolaevna – Deputy Chair of Committee on budget and taxes.Born on June 29, 1950, in Nizhnaya Salda, Sverdlovsk Region.

1972 – graduated from Department of engineering and economics of Urals Polytechnic institute and later completed post-graduate course therein. Ph.D. (Economics), Doctor of social sciences. 1973 – economist, operational department of Sverdlovsk factory of industrial rubber products. 1973-1985 – Deputy Secretary of Komsomol Committee, assistant, post-graduate student, Senior teacher, then Assistant Professor, Chair of political economy of Urals Polytechnic institute. 1985-1992 – Assistant Professor, Chair of political economy of Institute of advanced training (Urals State University). 1990 – elected to Sverdlovsk Regional Council of peoples’ deputies, Chair of innovations committee. 1992-1993 – Deputy Chair of the Committee. 1993-1994 – Head of Commission of developing norms and regulations in Administration of Sverdlovsk Region. December 1993 – elected to the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly, Chair of Committee on social policy. 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma, Chair of sub-committee on international scientific, cultural, social and humanitarian cooperation of Committee on international affairs; member of Commission of the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries on social policy and human rights. 1997 – vacated her seat due to transfer to civil service. 1997-2000 – Deputy RF Minister of labor and social development. November 2000 – April 2003 – First Deputy RF Minister of labor and social development, Deputy Chair of Inter-departmental Commission under RF Government on improving the status of women. April 2003 – appointed Deputy Head of RF Government in charge of social issues, thus replacing V. Matvienko. February 2004 – forced to resign as member of M. Kasyanov’s Government. April 2004 – appointed Head of RF Social security foundation. 1993- 1998 – President of Urals association of business women. Since 1994 – President of public organization “Confederation of business women of Russia”. Authored 150 publications on economic, social and political problems. Member of “United Russia” General Council. Laureate of the Lenin Komsomol award. Other awards include the badge of Honor, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 4th degree, medals “For labor merit”, “For valiant labor”, Golden badge of honor “Public recognition”. Married, has a son.

Member of the Second and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Karmazina Raisa Vasilievna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.Born on January 9, 1957 in Rostov-on-Don. 1969 – graduated from financial college,

1977 – from Rostov Institute of national economy.

Headed Norilsk Branch of Federal Treasury of the RF Ministry of finance. 1994 – elected to the Legislative Assembly of Krasnoyarsk Kray from the Women’s Union. 1997 – again elected to the Legislative Assembly of Krasnoyarsk Kray, Chair of Commission on finances, budget and taxation policies. 2001 – elected for the third time to the Legislative Assembly of Krasnoyarsk Kray, again became Chair of Commission on finances, budget and taxation policies, and member of Commission on natural resources, ecology and nature preservation. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from Yeniseysky voting district (Krasnoyarsk Kray). Member of “United Russia” faction, member of Committee on budget and taxes, member of the “Northern Party”. Co-founder of the “Unity” party branch in Krasnoyarsk Kray. Holder of medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd degree.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Karpovich Natalia Nikolaevna – First Deputy Chair of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on September 19, 1972, in Leningrad. Graduated from Teachers’ training college, Law Department of S.-Petersburg state university, also the school of bodyguards

121

Was professionally engaged in skiing, biathlon, boxing and combat sports. Medalist of many Russian and international competitions. Worked as a schoolteacher, a bodyguard, an entrepreneur, a lawyer in “Soyuz-Chernobyl” organization, and an advocate. President of Foundation for promoting women’s boxing. Master of sports in boxing and skiing. Married, has two sons and two daughters.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Komarova Natalia Vladimirovna – Chair of Committee on natural resources and nature management.

Born on October 21, 1955, in the village Yazvo, Pskov Region. 1978 – graduated from Kommunarsk Mining and smelting Institute. Since 1980 lived and worked in Novy Urengoy. 1980-1988 – employee, Executive committee of Novy Urengoy Council of people’s Deputies. 1988-1992 – Deputy Head of Municipal Executive Council, Chair of Commission on city planning. 1992-1994 – First Deputy, 1994-1997 – Head of Administration, 1997-2000 – Mayor of Novy Urengoi. September 2000 – December 2001 – First Deputy Governor of Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug. Parallel to administrative duties – engaged – Assistant Professor, Chair of Social Management (Tyumen Oil and Gas University). 2001 – elected to the Third RF State Duma after by-election in Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug, thus replacing V. Chernomyrdin who followed diplomacy as a career. Member of “Homeland – All Russia” faction, member of Committee on labor and social policies. 2003 – elected to the Fourth State Duma from Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug. Member of “United Russia” political party, Chair of Committee on natural resources and manure management. Member of “United Russia” General Council. Member of the Board of Congress of municipalities. Since May 2000 – RF Representative in the Chamber of Local Authorities of the Congress of local and regional authorities (Council of Europe), Vice-President of Committee for sustainable development. Laureate of the All-Russian contest “Woman-97” in the category “Region of equal rights and equal opportunities”. Awarded by the Order of Friendship and the Badge of Honor. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Kondakova Elena Vladimirovna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.

Born on March 30, 1957, in Mytischy, Moscow Region. 1980 – graduated from Moscow Higher Technical College named after N. Bauman, 2006 – from Diplomatic Academy of the RF Ministry of foreign affairs.

Worked as an engineer, “Energiya” rocket and space corporation 1989-1999 – member of astronauts’ team. October 4, 1994 – March 9, 1995 – first space flight on board “Soyuz-TM-17 spaceship and MIR Orbital Station. May 15-24, 1997 – second space flight on board the American “Space Shuttle” and the Russian “Mir” station. Total period in space – 169 days. Prior to election to the RF State Duma worked as instructor and test-astronaut in “Energiya” rocket and space corporation named after S. P. Korolyov. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma from “Homeland – All Russia” bloc, member of the “Homeland – All Russia” faction, member of Committee on budget and taxes. December 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma (from “United Russia”), member of “United Russia” faction, member of Committee on budget and taxes. Member of the Highest Council of the Russian united industrial party. Hero of Russia. Married (to V. Ryumin, astronaut), has one daughter.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

122

Kuz’micheva Ekaterina Ivanovna – member of Committee on education.

Born on January 16, 1955, in the village Znamenskoye, Penza Region. 1973 – graduated from Department of pre-school education of Ulyanovsk teachers’ training college, 1980 – from Department of pre-school education of Ulyanovsk teachers’ training institute. Ph.D. (Education). Since 1973 – worked as a mentor and Director of kindergarten in Moldavia and in Tolghiatti. 1988-1990 – party organizer, services and amenities division of “AvtoVAZ” car factory. 1990 – Head of Directorate of pre-school institutions (“AvtoVAZ” Open-Stock company), then Director of autonomous non-profit organization of pre-school education “Lada” – Planet of Childhood” (association of pre-school institutions that formerly belonged to “AvtoVAZ”).

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Lakhova Ekaterina Filippovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on labor and social policy

Born on May 26, 1948, in Sverdlovsk (now Ekaterinburg).

1972 – graduated from Sverdlovsk Medical institute. Honored worker of public health. Ph.D. (Political Sciences). 1972-1990 – nurse and district doctor, then deputy Head of Sverdlovsk City Department of public health in charge of protection of motherhood and childhood, Deputy Head of Sverdlovsk Oblast Department of public health in charge of protection of motherhood and childhood. 1990-1993 – member of RSFSR Supreme Council, Chair of Committee on women, protection of family, motherhood and childhood. 1991-appointed RSFSR State Counselor on family, protection of motherhood and childhood. 1992-1994 – advisor to RF President on family, motherhood and childhood, since 1994 – Chair of Commission on women, family and demography under RF President. October 1993 – co-founder of “Women of Russia” political movement; after victory in the 1993 election – head of “Women of Russia” faction in the First RF State Duma. In the Second RF State Duma – member of the “Russian Regions” group, member of Committee on regulations and organization of works of the State Duma, Commission of Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS states on social issues and human rights. In the Third State Duma – member of “Homeland – All Russia” faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on interaction with public associations and religious organizations, member of Commission of population problems. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from “United Russia”, member of “United Russia” faction, Chair of Committee on women, family and youth affairs, member of Commission on deputies’ credentials and ethics. Head of the Women’s Union of Russia and “Women of Russia” All-Russian public and political movement. Author of several books. Holder of medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 4th degree. Married, has one son.

Member of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Maximova Nadezhda Sergeevna – member of Committee on budget and taxes, Auditing Commission, Commission on review of federal budget expenditures allotted to RF defense and state security.

Born on January 13, 1942, in Kupino, Novosibirsk Region.. 1963 – graduated from Moscow Financial institute. Ph.D. (Economics).

Worked as budget inspector in Luberetsky district Department of finance (Moscow Region). Since 1966 – employee, Directorate of Finance for industry, then Budget department of RSFSR Ministry of Finance, rose from economist to Head of Department of light industry, trade, services and entrepreneurships.1988-1991 – Deputy RSFSR Minister of Finance, Head of Directorate of financial programs for manufacture, infrastructure and consumer market, RF Ministry of finance. 1998 – Head of Department of budget relationships. 2002 – Deputy RF

123

Minister of finance. July 2003 – councilor to RF Minister of finance. 2003 – elected to RF State Duma in a single-seat voting district in Karachaevo-Cherkessia. Deputy Chair of Committee on budget and taxes. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Mukabenova Marina Alexeevna – member of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on March 20, 1982, in Lagan’, Kalmyk ASSR. Graduated from Kalmyk State University.

Since 2002 – worked for TV and radio broadcasting company “Kalmykia” (affiliation of All-Russian TV and Radio Corporation) as program presenter and Editor-in-Chief of Kalmyk language broadcasting group.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Murzabaeva Salia Sharifyanovna – member of Committee on public health.

Born on September 13, 1957, in the village Tukatovo, Bashkir ASSR. Graduate of Bashkir Medical institute. Ph. D. (Medicine).

Worked as a pediatrician in the children’s hospital, in Ufa orphanage #3. 1984 – doctor-geneticist, medical-genetical consulting station of the Republican clinical hospital. Since 1996 – assistant, Chair of neurology of Bashkir medical university. Since 1998- Deputy Minister of public health of Bashkiria, First Deputy Minister of public health of Republic of Bashkortostan. Honored worker of public health of the Russian Federation. Married.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Novikova Klavdia Nikolaevna – member of Committee on labor and social policy.

Born on March 7, 1957, in Skopin, Ryazan Region. 1979 – graduated from Kazan chemical and technological institute, 1997 – from Kazan State medical university, major – “social work”; 2002 – from Tatar Institute of business development (major – “law”). Ph.D. (Sociology).

Since 1979 – production engineer, then deputy Secretary of KPSU organization at Kazan aviation production enterprise. Since 1987 – Secretary of Leninsky KPSU district committee of Kazan. 1990-1995 – Deputy Chair of District Council, Deputy Head of Administration of Aviastroitelny district (Kazan). Since 1996 – Minister of social welfare of Republic of Tatarstan. Since 2001 – Minister of social protection of Republic of Tatarstan. Since 2007 – Head of Office of civil registration, Cabinet of Ministers of Tatarstan. Married.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Noskova Olga Vladimirovna – member of Committee on information policy, information technologies and communication.

Born on June 14, 1955, in Berezniki, Perm Region. Graduate of Department of journalism of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov. Ph.D. (Philology).

Since 1977 – editor, head of sector, Editor-in-Chief of the editorial board of informational and publicist programs, Studio director at Gorky TV Studio. Since 1992 – Director, Nizhegorodsky state regional TV and radio studio, also author and program presenter

124

of several TV programs. 2006 – member, then Deputy Chair of legislature of Nizhegorodsky Region. Honored worker of culture of the Russian Federation. Has a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Onischenko Olga Vladimirovna – member of Committee on constitutional law and state construction Born on July 15, 1972, in Novosibirsk.

2001 – graduated from Tomsk State University (major – “jurisprudence”); 2004 – from Siberian academy of public administration. Ph.D. (Law).

Worked as secretary in the district court, inspector in the civil registration office and lawyer. Since 2001 – consultant, Committee on state construction and charter legislation of Novosibirsk Regional Council of deputies. Since 2003 – Deputy Director, Closed joint-stock “Insurance company “SibATOM”. December 2005 – elected to Novosibirsk Regional Council. Married to Alexey Onischenko, owner and Chair of the Board of Directors of “Rosstrakh” (Russian Insurance Company).

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Panina Elena Vladimirovna – Deputy Chair of Commission on industrial development.

Born on April 29, 1948, in Roslavl, Smolensk Region. 1970 – graduated from Moscow Financial institute, later – from Higher Business School under USSR Academy of external trade. Doctor of Economics.

Worked in Control and Auditing Directorate of Ministry of finance. 1975 – came to work for Moscow construction complex. 1978 – Deputy Director General of large Moscow enterprise of ferroconcrete industry. 1986 – elected Secretary on industrial affairs of Lyublinsky District KPSU Committee (Moscow). Member of district council of two convocations. 1988 – transferred to Moscow City KPSU Committee as Head of Social and Economic Department for coordination of Moscow industry. July 1991 – Head of Directorate of new forms of cooperation of the USSR Chamber of Trade and Commerce, in November became Head of Center of international business projects. 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma, member of Committee on Federation issues and regional policy, member of Inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries. 1992 – Chair of Moscow Confederation of Manufacturers and Entrepreneurs. 1993 – Chair of the Council of Russian Zemstvo Movement. Vice-President of the Russian Union of manufacturers and entrepreneurs, Head of Moscow Confederation of manufacturers and entrepreneurs (employers) – regional branch of Russian Union of manufacturers and entrepreneurs, Vice-President of the Russian Union of manufacturers. June 2002 – Head of Russian United Industrial Party. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma in a single-seat voting district. Member of “United Russia” faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on economic policy, business and tourism. Member of Presidium of “United Russia” General Council. Awards include Order of Friendship, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd degree, medal “In memory of 850th anniversary of Moscow”, order of the Russian Orthodox church and Saint equal to the apostles Great Princess Olga. Laureate of the National public recognition award for Russian women’s achievements “Olympia” (2002). Married, has one daughter.

Member of the Second, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Pepelyaeva Liliana Vitalyevna – Deputy Chair of Committee on financial markets.

Born on December 9, 1965, in Novosibirsk. 1988 – graduated from Law Department of Tomsk State University named after V. V. Kuibyshev (Novosibirsk affiliation); 1996 – from

125

Novosibirsk State Academy of economics and management. Ph.D. (Economics). Worked as inspector in human resources division (Novosibirsk institute of water transport engineers), Secretary of Komsomol committee (medical college #3). After graduating from Tomsk State University joined Novosibirsk regional bar. 1988-1998 – employee, legal counseling center in Novosibirsk Region. 1998 – appointed Head of “Siberian legal bureau”. 2003 – Chair of “Siberian legal bureau” Bar association of Novosibirsk Region. December 1996 – elected to Novosibirsk city Council of deputies; April 2001 – reelected for the second term. Member of permanent commissions on local self-government, public safety and interaction with mass media and on municipal services, housing construction and land issues. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from “United Russia”, member of “United Russia” faction, Committee on ownership and Commission on deputies’ credentials and ethics, also of Section on legislation related to civic law relations and property of the Council of experts and consultants on social and economic issues in “United Russia” faction. “United Russia” party coordinator of national projects, member of Association of lawyers of Russia. Provides legal counseling in “Our lawyer” newspaper and several district newspapers distributed in Novosibirsk. Holder of “Honored lawyer of Russia” badge, medal “For merits in protecting civic rights and freedoms, 1st grade, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd degree, order “Glory of Nation” awarded by charitable foundation “Patrons of the centenary” and public movement “Kind people of the world” for personal contribution to revival of charity in Russia. Married, has two children.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Peskovskaya Yulia Anatolyevna – member of Committee on labor and social policy.Born on July 10, 1956, in Syzran, Kuibyshev (Samara) Region.

1986 – graduated from Perm state teachers’ training institute, major – “teacher of pedagogic and psychology”; 1996 – from Academy of national economy under RF Government. Ph.D. (Economics).

1976-1978 – mentor in kindergarten in Lebediny village Aldansky district. 1978-1983 – miner, Lebediny mining plant at ”Aldanzoloto” (Aldan gold), secretary of primary Komsomol organization of Lebediny mining plant. 1983-1988 – Secretary, Aldan district Komsomol committee. 1988-1989 – Director,f “Minutka” children’s center, Aldan. 1989-1991 – instructor, Aldan district KPSU Committee. 1991-1992 – Head of department on family and women, Administration of Aldan. 1992-1996 – Deputy head of Administration of Aldan on social affairs. 1996 – Deputy Minister, First Deputy Minister of social protection, labor and employment of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Since 1997 – Acting Minister, since 1998 – Minister of social protection, labor and employment of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Since 2007 – Minister on entrepreneurship, tourism and employment of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Awarded with Badge of honor named after Sofia Sidorova. Has two children.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Pivnenko Valentina Nikolaevna – Chair, Committee on problems of the North and the Far East.

Born on June 14, 1947, in Petrozavodsk, Karelia ASSR. 1978 – graduated from Petrozavodsk University, 1992 – from Moscow Academy of labor and social relations.

1966-1971 – technician, engineer in Petrozavodsk and Prionezhye forest factories (Karelia). 1971-1975 – Head of sector of accounting and finance of Prionezhsky district KPSU party committee. 1975-1979 – engineer, head of sector (Petrozavodsk logging enterprise). 1979-1984 – Secretary, Karelia regional trade union committee of employees of local industry and

126

communal services. 1984-1992 – Head of Operations and salaries sector, head of department of workers’ economic protection of Karelia republican trade union Council. 1992-1994 – Head, Karelia republican trade union Council. April 1994 – member, May 1994 – Head of the Chamber of Representatives, Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Karelia. 1996-1997 – member of the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly from the Legislative Assembly of Karelia, Deputy Chair of Committee on budget, taxation, financial, currency and customs settlements, bank activities, member of Committee on budget control (Parliament Assembly of CIS countries). April 1998 – reelected member, May 1998 – Head of the Chamber of Representatives, Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Karelia. Since June 1998 – representative of Karelia legislature in the RF Federation Council. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma in Karelia single-seat voting district as an independent candidate. Member of “People’s Deputy” group, Chair of Committee on problems of the North and the Far East. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma, again in Karelia single-seat voting district. Member of “United Russia” faction, Chair of Committee on problems of the North and the Far East. Member of “United Russia” General Council. Honored worker of national economy of Republic of Karelia. Laureate of “Woman of the Year”-1997 award (instituted by American biographic institute), Order of Friendship and the Badge of honor. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Pugacheva Natalia Vasilievna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.

Born on October 26, 1953, in Zvitinsk, Amur Region. 1972 – graduated from Blagoveschensk agrarian college; 1980 – from Blagoveschensk agrarian institute; 2003 – from Russian Academy of public administration under RF President.

Worked as chief accountant of “Zheltoyarovsky” state farm. 1987 – Secretary of state farm KPSU organization. 1990 – elected Head of Zheltoyarovsky village council. 1991-2001 – Director, agrarian LLC “Niva”. 2001, 2005 – member of the Third and Fourth Councils of people’s deputies of Amur Region, Secretary of regional “United Russia” political council.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Rodnina Irina Konstantinovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on education.

Born on September 12, 1949, in Moscow. 1974 – graduated from Moscow Institute of physical culture. Honored master of sports. Ten times world champion, eleven times European champion in pair figure skating, winner of 10 World Championships, 3 Olympic gold medals and 11 European Championships, 1972, 1976, 1980 – won gold medals at Olympics. 1980 – retired from sports, worked in Komsomol Central Committee, as trainer in “Dinamo” sports society, teacher in the Institute of physical culture. 1990-1999 – worked as trainer in the USA. Member of the Council on physical culture and sports under RF President, Chair of Central Council of “Sportive Russia” organization. President of “Ice Club of Irina Rodnina” (Moscow). 2005 – member of RF Public Chamber. By decree of RF President, on September 26, 2007, appointed member of Presidential Council on physical culture and sports, the sport of records on preparation for and conduct of XXII Winter Olympics and XI Winter Para-Olympics in 2014 in Sochi. Awarded the Order of Lenin, two Orders of the Red Banner of Labour, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 3rd degree. September 2004 – received a citation from RF President “For outstanding contribution into development of physical culture and sports”. Author of the book “Uneven Ice”. Divorced, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

127

Semenova Ekaterina Yurievna – member of Committee on ownership.

Born on July 12, 1972, in Uray, Tyumen Region. Has University education.

Since 1991 – head of “Oblkulttorg” group of companies (manufacture and sale of stationery). Member of the board, Tyumen Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Member of Presidium and the Board of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russia.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Sergeeva Gulnara Il’dusovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on Federation issues and regional policy.

Born on June 5, 1960, in the village Dubyazy, Vysokogorsky regio, Tatarskaya SSR. 1982 – graduated from Law Department of Kazan State University. Honored lawyer of Tatarstan.

1977 – commenced her career as a secretary in the Moscow district people’s court (Kazan). 1978-1982 – laboratory assistant in school, mentor in Laishevsky pioneer camp. 1982-1985 – intern, the Bar of Tatarstan ASSR. 1984-1992 – lawyer, legal counseling center of Leninsky district of Kazan. 1992-2003 – Head of legal bureau in Kazan (since 2001 – “Sergeeva & Partners” legal bureau, since 2003 – “Sergeeva & Partners” bar association). 2001-2004 – Deputy head, then Head of Expert council on business development and entrepreneurship under inter-departmental commission on economic and social reforms of the Republic of Tatarstan. March 2004 – elected to the Third State Council of Republic of Tatarstan. Member of Committee on legality, regulations and deputy ethics. Since July 2004 – Director general, Agency of business development of Republic of Tatarstan. Speaks English. Married, has a son.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Sliska Lubov Konstantinovna – Vice Speaker of RF State Duma, member of Committee on budget and taxes, member of Commission on review of expenses of federal budget aimed at providing RF defense and state security.

Born on October 15, 1953, in Saratov. 1990 – graduated from Saratov Institute of Law named after D. I. Kursky. Ph.D. (History). Honored lawyer of the Russian Federation.

1970s – worked in technical control department of machine-building plant. 1977 – Deputy head of human resources department, Saratov affiliation of “Soyuzpechat” agency. Since 1987 – Head of Trade Union Committee, Saratov “Soyuzpechat” agency. 1992 – Chair, Trade Union Committee of workers of heavy machine building industry. 1995-1997 – Deputy Head, Saratov Election commission. 1996 – representative of Saratov Governor in Saratov Regional Duma. 1998 – Deputy Head, Saratov Regional Government. Since autumn 1998 – representative of Saratov Governor and regional Government in Saratov Regional Duma and local self-governance bodies. December 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma (on “Yedinstvo” party regional list), member of “Yedinstvo” party (later – “United Russia”). January 2000 – First Vice Speaker of the Third RF State Duma, Deputy Chair of Presidium of the Council on interaction of RF Federation Council with legislatures of RF subjects (Council of Legislators). 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from “United Russia”. Member of “United Russia” faction, member of Committee on international affairs. Reelected First Vice Speaker of the RF State Duma. Member of Political Council of Moscow Regional chapter of “United Russia”, member of “United Russia” Higher Council. Co-chair of Trustee Council of the National “Public Recognition” Foundation, independent “Civic Society” organization and National Civic Committee on interaction with law-enforcement, legislative and judicial bodies. Member of Editorial Board, “Recognition” social and political magazine. Member of RF State Duma

128

permanent delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO and coordinator of deputies’ group of cooperation with Parliament of Italy. Head of “Duma-Congress” working group. Holder of Badges of Honor, medals of the Order for Service to Homeland, 4th degree and 2nd degree, medal “In memory of 300th anniversary of S.-Petersburg”, Golden Badge of Honor “Public Recognition”, award from the Russian Orthodox Church (order of Saint Princess Olga) for contribution to restoration of orthodox relics in Sarov. Author of scientific works. Married.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Stepanova Zoya Mikhailovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on culture.

Born on July 6, 1953, in Sarapul, Udmurtskaya ASSR. 1975 – graduated from Rostov Institute of agricultural machine building, 1987 – from Rostov Higher party school.

Since 1975 – engineer, Research institute of mechanical engineering attached to the standardizing and research station of RSFSR Ministry of communal services. 1981 – instructor, Organizational department of Rostov District KPSU Committee. 1985 – Secretary, district executive committee, deputy, then Head of district Council of people’s deputies. 1993 – Head of Administration of Proletarsky District (Rostov-on-Don). 1997 – Executive officer for Governor of Rostov Region, deputy Governor. 2003 – elected to the RF State Duma in Proletarsky single-seat voting district of Rostov Region, Deputy Chair of committee on culture. Member of “United Russia” party. Awarded by medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 2nd degree, medal “100th

anniversary of great Russian writer, Nobel laureate M. A. Sholokhov”. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Khorkina Svetlana Vasilievna – Deputy Chair of Committee on youth affairs.

Born on January 19, 1979, in Belgorod. Graduate of Belgorod State University, Physical Training Department. Ph.D. (Teaching), Honored Master of Sports of Russia. Since 1991 – member of the national team of Russia. Three-fold absolute champion of Russia and many times champion of Russia in various Olympic gymnastics events. Absolute champion of Europe (1998, 2000, 2002), winner of European championships in parallel bars event (1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002), floor exercise (1998), and beam event (2000), in combined team events and team events (2000, 2002); absolute (all-around) World champion (1997, 2001, 2003), World champion in parallel bars event (1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001). In the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta (USA) came first in parallel bars event and second – in team all-around event. In 2000 Olympics in Sydney (Australia) won Gold medal (in parallel bars event) and two silver medals (in team all-around event and in floor exercise). In the 2004 Olympics in Athens (Greece) won silver in all-around event and bronze in team event. Since 2004 – first Vice President of the Federation of Olympic gymnastics of Russia.2001 – called the best sportswoman of the continent by the European Union of sports journalists. Laureate of the award “Person of the Year – 2001” from the Russian biographic institute. Leader of the ”Youth of Belgorod Region” movement. November 2002 – made a debut on the theatrical scene in the performance staged by Sergey Vinogradov (“Venus” after Henry Miller’s drama). Member of Political Council of “United Russia” Moscow branch. Holder of the Order of Friendship, Badge of Honor, medal of the Order for Service to Homeland, 4th degree. Divorced, has a son.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

129

Tsvetova Lubov Mikhailovna – member of Committee on agrarian issues.

Born on August 30, 1954, in the village Pridorozhnoye, Chelyabinsk Region.1977 – graduated from Troitsk veterinarian institute (now Urals State academy of veterinarian medicine).

Since 1982 – worked at “Glinki” agrarian enterprise (Kurgan). Since 1996 – Director of “Glinki” agrarian enterprise. December 2004 – elected to Kurgan Regional Duma from the Agrarian Party. Holder of the medal “For labor achievements”.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Tcherkesova Victoria Valerievna – member of Committee on education.

Born on January 27, 1982, in Kazan.

2005 – graduated from Kazan State technical university named after A. N. Tupolev. Since January 2006 – Deputy Chair, Public Chamber of Republic of Tatarstan. Vice-President of the League of students of Tatarstan. Co-Chair of “We” youth movement. Specialist on youth affairs of the public organization “Council of youth organizations of Tatarstan”.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma. Shoigu Larissa Kuzhugetovna – member of Committee on public health.

Born on January 21, 1953, in Chadan, Tyva ASSR. 1977 – graduated from Tomsk medical institute.

Worked as psychiatrist in Tuva. In late 1990s – appointed Deputy Minister of public health of Republic of Tyva. Since 2000 – Deputy Director on insurance medicine of EMERCOM Central Policlinics in Moscow. Sister of S. Shoigu, Minister of EMERCOM.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Shubina Lubov Fyodorovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on labor and social policy.

Born on May 12, 1952, in Arzamas, Gorky (Nizhegorodsky) Region. 1975 – graduated from Department of physics and math of Arzamas State teachers’ training institute named after A. P. Gaidar; 1996 – from Russian Academy of public administration under RF President.

Worked in Sakhalin as teacher, Deputy schoolmaster, Head of methodological office of City department of public education (Nevelsk). 1990 – elected to Nevelsk and Sakhalin Regional Council. Head of regional Commission on education, culture and sports. November 1991 – Chair of Nevelsk Council of people’s deputies. March 1994 – member, April 1994 – Vice Speaker of the First Sakhalin regional Duma. October 1996 – elected to the Second Sakhalin regional Duma, November 1996 – Vice Speaker of the Second Sakhalin regional Duma. Since October 2000 – member, First Vice Speaker of the Third Sakhalin regional Duma. Since 2004 – Vice-Governor of Sakhalin Region on social affairs. 1995 – started “Island Woman” – Sakhalin regional affiliation of the Women’s Union of Russia, elected President thereof. Holder of badge of honor “Expert Educator of the Russian Federation”. 2000 – named “Woman of the Year” by British Institute of international research. Married, has a son.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

130

Yakovleva Larisa Nikolaevna – member of Committee on Federation issues and regional policy.

Born on February 3, 1963, in the village Yoshkar-Pamash, Mari ASSR. Professional university education.

Worked as teacher, Deputy head of administration of Sovetsky district of Mari El Republic in charge of social affairs. Since 2005 – Deputy Minister of education of Mari El Republic. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Yakovleva Tatiana Vladimirovna – member of Committee on public health, Deputy Head of “United Russia” faction.

Born on July 7, 1960 in Arzamas-75, Gorky (Nizhegorodsky) Region. 1978 – graduated from Medical School, 1985 – from Ivanovo State Medical Institute named after A. S. Bubnov, 2001 – from Moscow State social institute. Ph.D. (Education).

1976 – hospital attendant, junior nurse in Children’s department (Municipal hospital of Arzamas-16). 1978 – nurse, traumatological unit of medical station (Odintsovo, Moscow Region). 1985 – pediatrician, Chief Physician of village hospital in Nerl, Ivanovo Region. Member of Nerl village council, Teikovskaya district council and Ivanovo regional council. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma from Inter-regional electoral bloc “Yedinstvo’ (Unity) in Ivanovo single-seat voting district. Member of “Yedinstvo” faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on public health and sports. Elected to the Fourth RF State Duma in Ivanovo single-seat voting district. Member of “United Russia” faction. Chair of committee on public health, Deputy Chair of Commission on technical regulations. Member of Bureau of “United Russia” Higher Council. Awarded with the Badge of Honor. Married, has a daughter.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas. Yarovaya Irina Anatolievna – Deputy Chair of Committee on Federation affairs and regional policy

Born on October 17, 1966, in Makeevka, Donetsk Region, Ukrainian SSR. 1988 – graduated from Law Department of Far East State university; 2000 – from Russian Academy of public administration under RF President.

1983-1988 – secretary, typist, labor protection engineer (Far East trust of engineering and construction survey). 1988-1997 – intern, investigator, assistant public prosecutor, deputy public prosecutor (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), Head of investigation department, Senior assistant to Public prosecutor of Kamchatka Region. November 1997 – member, December 1997 – Chair of Constitutional and legal Committee of the Second Council of people’s deputies of Kamchatka Region, Head of “Yabloko” faction. December 2001 – elected to the Third Council of people’s deputies of Kamchatka Region, Head of Committee on state construction and local self-government, Deputy head of Commission on regulations, ethics and procedures. Member of “United Russia” General Council. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

KPRF faction

Aparina Alevtina Victorovna – member of Committee on labor and social policy

131

Born on April 20, 1941, in Stalingrad (now Volgograd). 1967 – graduated from extra-mural Department of Philosophy of Rostov University; 1986 – from extra-mural Saratov Higher party school. Honored teacher of RSFSR.

Commenced her career as unskilled laborer on the state farm, cashier, accountant, pig-tender, poultry-maid, pioneer leader, teacher of Russian. Since 1968 – Secretary of District Komsomol Committee, since 1973 – Head of operational department of district KPSU committee, since 1976 – instructor of Volgograd Regional KPSU Committee. 1983 – First Secretary of Tsentralny district KPSU committee (Volgograd). 1991 – Secretary, Volgograd Regional KPSU Committee, later – Chair of “Lenin and Homeland” society. 1993 – First secretary, Volgograd Regional KPSU Committee, member of KPSU Central Committee. 1993 – elected to the First RF State Duma from KPRF. 1995, 1999 and 2003 elections – re-elected to RF State Duma on the same list. In the First RF State Duma – member of Committee on public associations and religious organizations. In the Second RF State Duma – member of KPRF faction, Chair of Committee on women, family and youth affairs. In the Third RF State Duma – member of KPRF faction, member of Committee on labor and social policies. In the Fourth RF State Duma – member of KPRF faction, member of Committee on labor and social policy. In different periods served as co-chair of All-Russian women’s union; chair of Volgograd regional affiliation of the All-Russian public movement “People’s Patriotic union of Russia” and member of Coordination Council thereof. Awarded with the Badge of Honor, memorial medal “100th

anniversary of V. I. Lenin’s birth”, breastplate “Expert public educator”.

Member of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Ostanina Nina Alexandrovna – member of Committee on family, women and children.

Born on December 26, 1955, in the village Kolpakovo, Altai Kray. 1978 – graduated from Department of History of Altai State University. Ph.D. (Sociology).

Delivered lectures on political sciences in Altai State medical institute, then – in Siberian mining academy. Headed information division of “Forward” Bank. 1994-1995 – assistant to Aman Tuleev, Head of Legislative Assembly of Kemerovo Oblast. 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma. Member of “Sovereignty of the people” group of deputies, member of Committee on Federation issues and regional policy, then – Deputy Chair of Committee on women, family and youth.. Elected to the Third and Fourth RF State Dumas from KPRF in Prokopyevsk single-seat voting district (Kemerovo region). In the Third RF State Duma – member of Agrarian and industrial group of deputies, Deputy Chair of Committee on women, family and youth.. In the Fourth RF State Duma – member of KPRF faction, member of Committee on women, family and youth. Secretary of Kemerovo Region KPRF Committee. Member of Committee for salvation of Kuzbass. Correspondent member of International Academy of informatization. Married, has two sons.

Member of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Pletnyova Tamara Vasilievna – Deputy Chair of Committee on veterans.

Born on November 22, 1947, in Novodubrovk, Nobosibirsk Region. 1971 – graduated from Tambov teachers’ training college; 1978 – from History Department of Tambov State teachers’ training institute. Honored teacher of RSFSR.

Since 1967 – teacher in elementary school, teacher of history in secondary school in Inzhavino village (Tambov Region), mentor at boarding school. Since 1993 – Director of Inzhavino boarding school. 1993 – elected to the First RF State Duma, Deputy Chair of Committee on women, family and youth. In the Second RF State Duma – member of Committee

132

on education and science. Elected to the Third RF State Duma in Tambov single-seat election district from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction, member of Committee on education and science. Elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from KPRF, member of KPRF faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on State Duma regulations and operations, member of Committee on practical implementation of RF election legislation. KPRF member since 1993. Member of KPRF Central Committee, was member of KPRF Central Executive Committee (1993). Member of Coordination Council of “People’s Patriotic Union of Russia”. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Savitskaya Svetlana Yegenyevna – Deputy Chair of Committee on defense, member of Commission on review of expenses of federal budget aimed at providing RF defense and state security.

Born on August 8, 1948, in Moscow. 1971 – graduated from Central Aeronautics and Technical School under USSR DOSAAF, 1972 – from Moscow Aviation Institute; 1976 – from school of test pilots. USSR pilot-astronaut. Twice Hero of the Soviet Union. Honored master of sports of the USSR, World champion in aerial acrobatics. Ph.D. (Engineering). Acting member (academician) of the International astronautic academy.

Worked as test pilot and instructor. 1967 – mastered jet planes, set 18 world records. 1970 – absolute world champion in aerial acrobatics. 1980 – member of the astronauts’ team. First space fligh – August 19-27, 1982; second space flight – July 17-29, 1984. The first woman to get into outer space. Until 1989 – Deputy head, Department of Chief Designer in “Energiya” rocket and space corporation, instructor – test astronaut, 2nd grade. Served as First deputy Chair of the Soviet Peace Fund. 1989-1991 – People’s Deputy of the USSR, member of USSR Supreme Council. 1993 – ran for the First RF State Duma from the “Civic Union” bloc. In the Second RF State Duma – member of sub-committee on military and technical policy and advanced projects of Committee on defense, member of Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries on defense and security. Elected to the Third RF State Duma in a single-seat voting district from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction, member of Committee on defense. Elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on defense. Associate Professor at Moscow State aviation institute (technical university). 1995-1999 – member of the Central Council of public political movement “Spiritual heritage”. Member of Presidium of Coordination Council of “People’s Patriotic Union of Russia”. Awarded two Orders of Lenin and a special medal for world record of women’s stay in the outer space. Author of the book “Yesterday and tomorrow”. Married, has a son.

Member of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

LDPR faction

Afanasieva Elena Vladimirovna – member of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on March 27, 1975, in Orenburg. 1997 – graduated from Orenburg teachers’ training institute; 2007 – from Diplomatic academy of RF Ministry of foreign affairs. Worked as teacher of history. 1997-2003 – assistant to member of RF State Duma. Since 1998 – Head of LDPR Orenburg branch. 1999 – ran for RF State Duma on the LDPR list (the party was denied registration). 2001 – elected to LDPR Higher council. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma, member of Committee on women, family and children. September 2004 – ran for the post of Mayor of Orenburg, obtained 1,5% of votes. October 2005 – nominated Minister of education of Kaliningrad Region and vacated her deputy’s seat. One month later changed her decision and was reinstalled as a deputy. Married, has a son.

133

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Volozhinskaya Svetlana L’vovna – member of Committee on budget and taxes, member of Commission on review of expenses of federal budget aimed at providing RF defense and state security.

Born on May 6, 1969, in Moscow. Received secondary education. Since 1992 – Director, medical LCC NPF “Litech”. 2004 – also Director, pharmaceutical LCC “Biotechlit”. 2006 – in addition to the above positions also became Director of pharmaceutical LCC PC “Biogen” and medical and orthopedic LLC “Diagone-Rus”. Was married to Oleg Govorun, Head of Presidential Department of home policy.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Gor’kova Irina Petrovna – member of Committee on local self-governance.Born on September 18, 1959, in the village Borisovo, Mozhaisky District, Moscow

Region. 1983 – graduated from Moscow Institute of geodesics, aerial photography and mapping; 2005 – from Moscow vehicle and road institute (technical university); also Academy of public administration.

Since 2001 – head of Iskrovsky rural district, since 2005 – of “Lunevskoye” rural settlement, Solnechnogorsk municipal district of Moscow Region.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Dubrovskaya Tatiana Borisovna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.Born on September 19, 1969, in Volgograd. 1993 – graduated from Department of

physics of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov; 2004 – from University of the Russian Academy of education, major – “mathematical models in economics”.

Since 1992 – Chief accountant, “Kiev-Aluminum Product” company. 1997 – Chief accountant and member of the Board of Directors, “Alinvest” company. 1997-1998 – Head of Finance department, 1998-2003 – Deputy Director General on finances of LLC “Siberian Aluminum” Group” (later – LLC “Basic Element”). 2003-2004 – managing Director, LLC “Basic Element”. 2003 – elected to the Board of Directors of “Ingosstrakh” insurance company. Since 2004 – Director General, Chair of the Board, member of the Council of Directors, “Ingosstrakh” Company. 2005 – appointed First Deputy Director of “MetalloInvest” company. 2006 – Deputy Director general, “Kortes” investment company. Has three children.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

“Fair Russia” faction

Vtorygina Elena Andreevna – member of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on August 17, 1957, in Archangelsk. 1998 – graduated from Northern Business institute; 2002 – from Academy of public administration.

Commenced her career as a laboratory worker. Served as Chair of trade union committee of Solombal’sky pulp and paper combine. 1990s – Deputy Head of regional trade union committee of SME workers. 1999-2004 – Chair of Committee on women, family and children, Administration of Archangelsk Region. December 2004 – member, then Deputy Chair of Archangelsk Fourth Regional Assembly. Head of Council of “Fair Russia” regional branch in

134

Archangelsk Region. Chair of Archangelsk regional affiliation of “Women’s Union of Russia”, Vice-President of “Association of business women of Russia”, winner of the All-Russian contest “Woman – Director of the Year” (2000). Holder of lapel badge “Honored worker of the sphere of youth policy” from RF Ministry of public education, Certificate of honor of RF Ministry of public education, lapel badge of Goscomstat of Russia “For active participation in the All-Russian public census – 2002”, memorable medal of the Women’s Union of Russia, order “Service to Homeland” from “Association of business women of Russia” (2007). Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Glubokovskaya Elmira Guseinovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on public health.

Born on April 20, 1957, in Buynaksk, Dagestani ASSR. 1980 – graduated from Dagestani medical institute. 1980-1983 – post-graduate student in Central research institute of epidemiology and infectious diseases of USSR Ministry of public health. 1990-1995 – doctoral candidate, Central research institute of epidemiology and infectious diseases. Doctor of Medicine. Worked as university professor.

1990-1995 – senior researcher, Central research institute of epidemiology and infectious diseases. 1995 – advisor to Managing director, RF State Committee of sanitary and epidemiological control. Since 1997 – employee, Secretarial of the Head of Staff of RF Government. Also, since 1994 – head of “Future without AIDs” charitable organization, member of Board of the Women’s Union of Russia, member of the General Council of the World Family Organization. 1997 – Co-Chair of All-Russian union of public associations “Women’s movement for a healthy nation”. 2000-2002 – member of Revision Commission, Deputy Chair of Committee on women’s affairs, Public Chamber of the Union of Russia and Belarus. 2005 – member of RF Public Chamber, Commission on health protection. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Goryacheva Svetlana Petrovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on regulations and organization of State Duma work.

Born on June 3, 1947, in the village Risovy, Anchurinsk district of Primorsky Kray. 1974 – graduated from Law Department of Far East State University, major – “jurisprudence”.

1965 – commenced her career as menial worker, later – accountant in Daubikhinsky forest farm (Arsenyev, Primorsky Kray), assembler and clincher (“Progress” machine-building factory), cashier, interior decorator. 1974-1976 – consultant, Justice department of Primorsky Kray executive committee of people’s deputies (Vladivostok). 1977-1986 – procurator, General Supervision Department of the Procurator’s Office of Primorsky Kray. 1986-1990 – Procurator, Primorsky inter-district environmental Procurator’s Office. March 1990 – elected RSFSR people’s deputy, member of “Russia” faction. At the First RSFSR Congress of People’s Deputies elected Deputy Head of the RSFSR Supreme Council. 1992 – submitted resignation due to disagreement with conducted policies. Became famous after publishing an open letter criticizing Boris Yeltsin, then Head of the RSFSR Supreme Council. Continued as member of Committee of RSFSR Supreme Council on ecology and rational use of natural resources. November 1991 – Deputy Procurator of Vladivostok. December 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction, Vice Speaker of RF State Duma. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction (until May 2002), Chair of Committee on women, family and children. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma in Ussuri voting district. Did not belong to any group, member of Committee on regulations and organization of

135

State Duma operations. 1992-1993 – member of Political Council of the National Salvation Front. 1993 – elected to the KPRF Central executive committee at the II (recovery) KPRF Congress. At the III KPRF Congress (January 1995) – member of Presidium of KPRF Central Committee, at the IV Congress (April 1997) – member of KPRF Central Committee. May 2002 – expelled from KPRF for non-execution of decisions of plenary sessions, did not resign as Chair of RF State Duma Committee (nominated by the KPRF faction). Married, has a son.

Member of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Dmitrieva Oxana Genrikhovna – First Deputy Head of “Fair Russia” faction, member of Committee on budget and taxes.

Born on April 3, 1958, in Leningrad. 1980 – graduated from Leningrad Finance and economics institute named after N. A. Voznesensky. Doctor of Economics.

1980-1991 – employee, problem laboratory of regional economic research at Leningrad Finance and economics institute, 1991-1993 – Head of laboratory of regional diagnostics of S-Petersburg university of economics and finance. 1993 – elected to the First RF State Duma from “Yabloko” electoral bloc. 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma also from “Yabloko”. Member of “Yabloko” faction, Chair of Committee on budget, taxes, banking and finances, Commission of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries on economy and finance. May 1998 – terminated the authority ahead of schedule due to nomination as Minister of labor and social development. In August 1998, after the default, resigned as member of Premier S. Kirienko’s Cabinet. 1998-1999 – professor, S-Petersburg university of economics and finance. December 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma in Yuzhny single-seat voting district of S.-Petersburg from “Homeland – All Russia” electoral bloc. Until 2001 – member of the “People’s Deputy” group. Later, did not belong to any registered group of deputies. Deputy Chair of Committee on budget and taxes. December 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma in Yuzhny single-seat voting district of S.-Petersburg. Did not belong to any registered group of deputies. Member of Committee on budget and taxes. July 1998 – co-founded regional “Northern Capital” political movement. Authored over 70 scientific publications. Married to Ivan Grachev, RF State Duma member, has a son.

Member of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Drapeko Elena Grigoryevna – First Deputy Chair of Committee on culture.Born on October 29, 1948, in Uralsk, West Kazakhstan district, Kazakh SSR. 1966-1968

– student, Department of art direction of public theatres, Leningrad Institute of culture named after N. K. Krupskaya. 1972 – graduated from Leningrad Institute of theatre, music and cinematography. Honored artist of Russia.

1972-1992 – actress at the “Lenfilm” studio. Performed in 60 movies, among them “Daybreaks Are Quiet Here”, “Everlasting Call”, “The Hottest Month”, “Fatherless Child”, “Sage-brush is Bitter Herb”, “Hostel Provided to Single Persons”. 1992-1993 – Chair of Committee on tourism and culture, S.-Petersburg City Administration. 1992 – professor, S.-Petersburg humanitarian university of trade unions. 1993-1994 – Vice-President, Guild of cinema actors. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma from KPRF. Member of the Agro-Industrial group, Deputy Chair of Committee on culture and tourism. 2003 – elected to the Fourth RF State Duma from KPRF. Member of KPRF faction, later – of the faction of “People’s Patriotic Union “Homeland”, then – of “Fair Russia – Motherland” faction. Deputy Chair of Committee on culture. June 2007 – joined the “Fair Russia” party. Member of Permanent commission of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries on culture, information, tourism and sports. 1980-1990 – member of the Central Committee of trade union of people of arts. 1995-1999 – member of the board of Union of Cinematographers of Russia, member of the

136

Council of “Women of S.-Petersburg” movement; member of the Central Council, then Chair of S.-Petersburg regional branch of All-Russian public and political movement “Spiritual Heritage”, member of Presidium of Coordination Council of all-Russian public movement “People’s Patriotic Union of Russia”. Correspondent member of Peter’s Academy of science and arts. Acting member of the Academy of tourism, professor of the International Slavic academy of sciences, education, arts and culture. Laureate of Lenin Komsomol Prize. Holder of the medal “In memory of 850th anniversary of Moscow”. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Third, Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Kuzmina Alla Vladimirovna – Deputy Chair of Committee on public associations and religious organizations.

Born on May 23, 1963, in Daugavpils, Latvian SSR. Daughter of Vladimir Shevchenko, Advisor to RF President (Head of protocol of USSR and RF Presidents since 1990s). University education. Ph.D. (Philosophy).

Conducted research activities, served as President of inter-regional charitable foundation “Family of Russia”. Author of the books “Health Bestowed by Grape-Vines”, “Cultural traditions of Russian power”, “The concept of justice in the liberal tradition”.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Lekareva Vera Alexandrovna – member of Committee on budget and taxes.Born on January 4, 1948, in Kuibyshev (now Samara). 1978 – graduated from Kuibyshev

teachers’ training institute named after V. V. Kuibyshev, major – “teacher of history, social sciences and English”; 2002 – from Russian Academy of advocates. Ph.D. (History).

Commenced her career at the “Metallurg” plant, worked as teacher and head teacher in vocational school. Since 1982 – shop master, head of section, Director of “Metallurg” stadium. Since 1988 – Head of Directorate of sports facilities of Kuibyshev Region, later – Head of Directorate of sports facilities of Trade unions Federation of Samara Region. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma in Promyshlenny single-seat voting district of Samara Region from the Union of Right Forces (SPS). Member of SPS faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on women, family and youth. Leader of Samara SPS branch. Since 2004 – advisor on social issues to S. Mironov, Speaker of the RF Federation Council. Deputy Head of Samara women’s union. Member of “Orthodox Samara” association. Honored organizer of physical culture and sports.

Member of the Third and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Lukyanova Kira Alexandrovna – member of Committee on economic policy and entrepreneurship.

Born on November 23, 1962, in Saratov. 1985 – graduated from Department of journalism of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov.

Worked as reporter for “Air Transport” and “Moskivsky Komsomolets” newspapers. Late 1980s – engineer, Division of scientific and research information, propaganda and exhibitions, USSR Ministry of water industry. Since early 1990s – plunged into business together with Andrey Shmakov, her spouse. Head of “Binitech” consortium (mentioned in mass media as a “financial pyramid”; in 1995, criminal proceedings launched on charges of fraud); “Almazzolotobank” (went bankrupt in 2005); manager of “Oil and gas assets” (lisence suspended in 2005), and “Glenik-M” investments and finance group. Since 1999 – assistant to Alexander Tchuev, RF State Duma member. Since 2005 – member of “Motherland” union. 2005 – ran for the Moscow City Duma. 2006 – ran in by-elections to the RF State Duma. President of

137

public movement in support of family, motherhood and childhood “Ray of Hope”. Married, has two daughters.

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Mizulina Elena Borisovna – Chair of Committee on women, family and children.

Born on December 9, 1954, in Byuy, Kostroma Region. 1977 – graduated from Law Department of Yaroslavl State University named after P. G. Demidov. Doctor of Law.

Worked as consultant in the Yaroslavl Regional court. 1985-1987 – senior researcher, 1987-1992 – Chair of Department of Russian history, Yaroslavl State teachers’ training institure. Since 1992 – Associate Professor, then – Professor, Chair of criminal law and process, Yaroslavl State University. Expert of the Constitutional Commission of Yaroslavl Region, one of authors of draft Criminal and Procedural Code of Russia. 1993 – elected to the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly in Yaroslavl double-seat voting district. Deputy Chair of Committee on constitutional law and judicial and legal affairs, member of Commission of regulation and parliamentary procedures. 1995 – elected to the Second RF State Duma in Kirovsky voting district (Yaroslavl Region) from the “Yabloko” party. Member of “Yabloko” faction, Deputy Chair of Committee on legislation and judicial reform, Chair of sub-committee on state construction and protection of citizens’ constitutional rights. 1996 – Chair of Commission of the Parliamentary Assembly of Russia and Belarus on draft legislation and regulations. 1999 – elected to the Third RF State Duma from “Yabloko”. Member of “Yabloko” faction, then changed over to “Union of Right Forces” faction. Deputy Chair of Committee on legislation, member of Commission on ethics, member of Commission on prevention of child neglect, homelessness and drugs addiction among underage children and youth. Since February 2004 – RF State Duma Representative in the RF Constitutional Court. Since 1995 – head of Yaroslavl Regional “Yabloko” affiliation, October, 1997 – initiated Yaroslavl regional “Yabloko” Party” public organization. Since 1999 – Head of coordination council of Yaroslavl regional branch of “Union of Right Forces”. December 2000 – stepped down from both positions. Authored nearly 140 research publications, methodological manuals and books. Speaks German. Married, has a son and a daughter.

Member of the Second, Third and Fifth RF State Dumas.

Moskalkova Tatiana Nikolaevna – Deputy Chair of Committee on CIS affairs and relations with compatriots.

Born on May 30, 1955, in Vitebsk, Belorussian SSR. 1978 – graduated from Moscow Law institute, then – from post-graduate course at the Institute of state and law, USSR Academy of sciences, doctorate at the Academy of management of the Russian Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as MVD). Doctor of Law. Honored lawyer of the Russian Federation. Major-General of militia. Worked in the Law Office for International Affairs (“Inyurcollegia”). Since 1974 – consultant, Department on clemency of the Presidium of RSFSR Supreme Council. Since 1984 – worked in the Ministry of the Interior, rising from legal assistant to First Deputy Head of MVD Legal Department. Member of Council on promoting justice under RF President. Member of Expert Councils on MVD standard-setting, RF State Duma Committee on security, RF Federation Council Committee on security and defense. Served as RF Representative in the Council of Europe and OSCE. Participant of several Russia-Belorussia forums. Authored over 100 publications, collections of articles, four monographs, co-authored of manuals on criminal proceedings, comments to the RF Constitution and the Criminal and Procedural Code. Awarded with the Badge of Honor, personal weapons, Certificates of Honor of the RF State Duma and the Federation Council, order of Saint Princess Olga of the Russian Orthodox church, several departmental awards. Married, has a daughter

138

Member of the Fifth RF State Duma.

Khovanskaya Galina Petrovna – member of Committee on construction and land relations.

Born on August 23, 1943, in Moscow. 1965 – graduated from Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute, 1999 – from Academic legal institute (evening department) under the Institute of State and Law, RF Academy of Sciences.

Since 1966 – worked in the Institute of Applied mathematics named after M. V. Keldysh, USSR Academy of Sciences. Since late 1980s – member of “Democratic Russia, then “Yabloko” party. Early 1990s – worked in the Prefect’s Office of the Central Administrative district of Moscow. Elected to the First (1993-1997), Second (1997-2001) and Third (2001-2005) Moscow City Dumas, coordinated housing policy, member of Commission on housing policy, budget and finance, Chair of Commission on housing policy and communal reform. 1995 and 1999 – ran, 2003 – elected to the RF State Duma, member of Committee on civic, criminal, arbitration and procedural legislation. Married, has one daughter.

Member of the Fourth and Fifth RF State Dumas.

139

2. Women in National Parliaments

The data in the table below was compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Situation as of May 31,2008

World averages92

BOTH HOUSES COMBINED Total MPs 44’121Gender breakdown known for 43’898Men 35’893Women 8’005Percentage of women 18.2%

SINGLE HOUSE OR LOWER HOUSETotal MPs 37’177Gender breakdown known for 37’047Men 30’219Women 6’828Percentage of women 18.4%

UPPER HOUSE OR SENATETotal MPs 6’944Gender breakdown known for 6’851Men 5’674Women 1’177Percentage of women 17.2%

Regional averagesSingle House

or lower HouseUpper House

or SenateBoth Houses

combinedNordic countries 41.4% --- ---Americas 21.6% 20.0% 21.4%Europe - OSCE member countriesincluding Nordic countries

21.2% 18.8% 20.7%

Europe - OSCE member countriesexcluding Nordic countries

19.3% 18.8% 19.2%

Sub-Saharan Africa 18.4% 16.6% 18.2%Asia 17.2% 20.8% 17.6%Pacific 13.4% 31.8% 15.4%Arab States 9.7% 7.0% 9.1%Regions are classified by descending order of the percentage of women in the lower or single House

92 http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm

140

World classification93

188 country are classified by descending order of the percentage of women in the lower or single House.

Rank Country Lower or single House Upper House or SenateElections Seats* Women % W Elections Seats* Women % W

1 Rwanda 10 2003 80 39 48.8% 9 2003 26 9 34.6% 2 Sweden 9 2006 349 164 47.0% --- --- --- --- 3 Cuba 1 2008 614 265 43.2% --- --- --- --- 4 Finland 3 2007 200 83 41.5% --- --- --- --- 5 Argentina 10 2007 255 102 40.0% 10 2007 72 28 38.9% 6 Netherlands 11 2006 150 59 39.3% 5 2007 75 26 34.7% 7 Denmark 11 2007 179 68 38.0% --- --- --- --- 8 Costa Rica 2 2006 57 21 36.8% --- --- --- --- 9 Spain 3 2008 350 127 36.3% 3 2008 254 72 28.3% 10 Norway 9 2005 169 61 36.1% --- --- --- --- 11 Belgium 6 2007 150 53 35.3% 6 2007 71 27 38.0% 12 Mozambique 12 2004 250 87 34.8% --- --- --- --- 13 Nepal 4 2008 568 191 33.6% --- --- --- --- 14 Iceland 5 2007 63 21 33.3% --- --- --- --- 15 New Zealand 9 2005 121 40 33.1% --- --- --- --- 16 South Africa 1 4 2004 400 132 33.0% 4 2004 54 22 40.7% 17 Austria 10 2006 183 60 32.8% N.A. 61 15 24.6% 18 Germany 9 2005 613 194 31.6% N.A. 69 15 21.7% 19 Uganda 2 2006 332 102 30.7% --- --- --- --- 20 Burundi 7 2005 118 36 30.5% 7 2005 49 17 34.7% 21 United Republic of

Tanzania12 2005 319 97 30.4% --- --- --- ---

22 Peru 4 2006 120 35 29.2% --- --- --- --- " The F.Y.R. of

Macedonia7 2006 120 35 29.2% --- --- --- ---

" Timor-Leste 6 2007 65 19 29.2% --- --- --- --- 23 Belarus 10 2004 110 32 29.1% 11 2004 58 18 31.0% 24 Guyana 8 2006 69 20 29.0% --- --- --- --- 25 Switzerland 10 2007 200 57 28.5% 10 2007 46 10 21.7% 26 Portugal 2 2005 230 65 28.3% --- --- --- --- 27 Afghanistan 9 2005 242 67 27.7% 9 2005 102 22 21.6% 28 Namibia 11 2004 78 21 26.9% 11 2004 26 7 26.9% 29 Trinidad and

Tobago11 2007 41 11 26.8% 12 2007 31 13 41.9%

30 Australia 11 2007 150 40 26.7% 11 2007 76 27 35.5% " Grenada 11 2003 15 4 26.7% 11 2003 13 4 30.8%

31 Viet Nam 5 2007 493 127 25.8% --- --- --- --- 32 Kyrgyzstan 12 2007 90 23 25.6% --- --- --- --- 33 Iraq 12 2005 275 70 25.5% --- --- --- --- " Suriname 5 2005 51 13 25.5% --- --- --- ---

34 Lao People’s Democratic Republic

4 2006 115 29 25.2% --- --- --- ---

35 Andorra 4 2005 28 7 25.0% --- --- --- --- " Ecuador 10 2006 100 25 25.0% --- --- --- --- " Lesotho 2 2007 120 30 25.0% 3 2007 31 9 29.0% " Monaco 2 2008 24 6 25.0% --- --- --- ---

36 Singapore 5 2006 94 23 24.5% --- --- --- --- 37 Liechtenstein 3 2005 25 6 24.0% --- --- --- --- 38 Seychelles 5 2007 34 8 23.5% --- --- --- --- 39 Honduras 11 2005 128 30 23.4% --- --- --- --- 40 Luxembourg 6 2004 60 14 23.3% --- --- --- ---

93 http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

141

Rank Country Lower or single House Upper House or SenateElections Seats* Women % W Elections Seats* Women % W

41 Mexico 7 2006 500 116 23.2% 7 2006 128 23 18.0% 42 Tunisia 10 2004 189 43 22.8% 7 2005 111 17 15.3% 43 Lithuania 10 2004 141 32 22.7% --- --- --- --- 44 Pakistan 2 2008 338 76 22.5% 3 2006 100 17 17.0% " United Arab

Emirates12 2006 40 9 22.5% --- --- --- ---

45 Mauritania 11 2006 95 21 22.1% 1 2007 56 9 16.1% 46 Eritrea 2 1994 150 33 22.0% --- --- --- --- " Senegal 6 2007 150 33 22.0% 8 2007 100 40 40.0%

47 Ethiopia 5 2005 529 116 21.9% 10 2005 112 21 18.8% 48 Republic of

Moldova3 2005 101 22 21.8% --- --- --- ---

49 Bulgaria 6 2005 240 52 21.7% --- --- --- --- 50 Serbia 5 2008 250 54 21.6% --- --- --- --- 51 Canada 1 2006 305 65 21.3% N.A. 93 32 34.4% " China 3 2008 2987 637 21.3% --- --- --- ---

52 Italy 4 2008 629 133 21.1% 4 2008 322 58 18.0% 53 Croatia 11 2007 153 32 20.9% --- --- --- --- 54 Estonia 3 2007 101 21 20.8% --- --- --- --- 55 Philippines 5 2007 239 49 20.5% 5 2007 23 4 17.4% 56 Poland 10 2007 460 93 20.2% 10 2007 100 8 8.0% 57 Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea

8 2003 687 138 20.1% --- --- --- ---

58 Latvia 10 2006 100 20 20.0% --- --- --- --- 59 Dominican Republic 5 2006 178 35 19.7% 5 2006 32 1 3.1% 60 Cambodia 7 2003 123 24 19.5% 1 2006 61 9 14.8% " United Kingdom 5 2005 646 126 19.5% N.A. 750 148 19.7%

61 Guinea 6 2002 114 22 19.3% --- --- --- --- " Slovakia 6 2006 150 29 19.3% --- --- --- ---

62 Venezuela 12 2005 167 31 18.6% --- --- --- --- 63 Nicaragua 11 2006 92 17 18.5% --- --- --- --- 64 France 6 2007 577 105 18.2% 9 2004 330 60 18.2% " Saint Vincent and

the Grenadines12 2005 22 4 18.2% --- --- --- ---

65 Cape Verde 1 2006 72 13 18.1% --- --- --- --- " Sudan 8 2005 443 80 18.1% 8 2005 50 3 6.0%

66 Tajikistan 2 2005 63 11 17.5% 3 2005 34 8 23.5% " Uzbekistan 12 2004 120 21 17.5% 1 2005 100 15 15.0%

67 Mauritius 7 2005 70 12 17.1% --- --- --- --- 68 Bolivia 12 2005 130 22 16.9% 12 2005 27 1 3.7% 69 United States of

America11 2006 435 73 16.8% 11 2006 100 16 16.0%

70 El Salvador 3 2006 84 14 16.7% --- --- --- --- " Gabon 12 2001 120 20 16.7% 2 2003 91 14 15.4% " Panama 5 2004 78 13 16.7% --- --- --- ---

71 Dominica 5 2005 31 5 16.1% --- --- --- --- 72 Turkmenistan 12 2004 50 8 16.0% --- --- --- --- 73 Kazakhstan 8 2007 107 17 15.9% 8 2005 47 2 4.3% 74 Czech Republic 6 2006 200 31 15.5% 10 2006 81 11 13.6% 75 Burkina Faso 5 2007 111 17 15.3% --- --- --- --- 76 Zambia 9 2006 158 24 15.2% --- --- --- --- 77 Angola 9 1992 220 33 15.0% --- --- --- --- " Chile 12 2005 120 18 15.0% 12 2005 38 2 5.3%

78 Greece 9 2007 300 44 14.7% --- --- --- --- 79 Cyprus 5 2006 56 8 14.3% --- --- --- --- 80 Israel 3 2006 120 17 14.2% --- --- --- --- 81 Guinea-Bissau 3 2004 100 14 14.0% --- --- --- ---

142

Rank Country Lower or single House Upper House or SenateElections Seats* Women % W Elections Seats* Women % W

" Russian Federation 12 2007 450 63 14.0% N.A. 169 8 4.7% 82 Cameroon 7 2007 180 25 13.9% --- --- --- --- 83 Djibouti 2 2008 65 9 13.8% --- --- --- --- 84 Republic of Korea 4 2008 299 41 13.7% --- --- --- --- 85 Zimbabwe 3 2008 207 28 13.5% 3 2008 93 ? #VALEU86 Ireland 5 2007 166 22 13.3% 7 2007 60 13 21.7% " Jamaica 9 2007 60 8 13.3% 9 2007 21 3 14.3%

87 Sierra Leone 8 2007 121 16 13.2% --- --- --- --- 88 Malawi 5 2004 193 25 13.0% --- --- --- --- 89 Liberia 10 2005 64 8 12.5% 10 2005 30 5 16.7% " Paraguay 4 2008 80 10 12.5% 4 2008 45 7 15.6%

90 Niger 12 2004 113 14 12.4% --- --- --- --- " Syrian Arab

Republic4 2007 250 31 12.4% --- --- --- ---

91 Bahamas 5 2007 41 5 12.2% 5 2007 15 9 60.0% " Slovenia 10 2004 90 11 12.2% 12 2002 40 1 2.5%

92 Uruguay 10 2004 99 12 12.1% 10 2004 31 4 12.9% 93 Guatemala 9 2007 158 19 12.0% --- --- --- --- " Maldives 1 2005 50 6 12.0% --- --- --- ---

94 Bosnia and Herzegovina

10 2006 42 5 11.9% 3 2007 15 2 13.3%

95 San Marino 6 2006 60 7 11.7% --- --- --- --- " Thailand 12 2007 480 56 11.7% 3 2008 150 24 16.0%

96 Indonesia 4 2004 550 64 11.6% --- --- --- --- 97 Azerbaijan 11 2005 123 14 11.4% --- --- --- --- 98 Botswana 10 2004 63 7 11.1% --- --- --- --- " Hungary 4 2006 386 43 11.1% --- --- --- --- " Montenegro 9 2006 81 9 11.1% --- --- --- --- " Saint Lucia 12 2006 18 2 11.1% 1 2007 11 3 27.3% " Togo 10 2007 81 9 11.1% --- --- --- ---

99 Ghana 12 2004 230 25 10.9% --- --- --- --- 100 Benin 3 2003 83 9 10.8% --- --- --- ---

" Malaysia 3 2008 222 24 10.8% N.A. 59 17 28.8% " Swaziland 10 2003 65 7 10.8% 10 2003 30 11 36.7%

101 Antigua and Barbuda

3 2004 19 2 10.5% 3 2004 17 4 23.5%

" Central African Republic

3 2005 105 11 10.5% --- --- --- ---

" Morocco 9 2007 325 34 10.5% 9 2006 270 3 1.1% 102 Mali 7 2007 147 15 10.2% --- --- --- --- 103 Barbados 1 2008 30 3 10.0% 2 2008 21 4 19.0% 104 Gambia 1 2002 53 5 9.4% --- --- --- ---

" Japan 9 2005 480 45 9.4% 7 2007 242 44 18.2% " Kenya" Romania 11 2004 330 31 9.4% 11 2004 137 14 10.2%

105 Armenia 5 2007 131 12 9.2% --- --- --- --- 106 India 4 2004 541 49 9.1% 7 2006 243 24 9.9%

" Turkey 7 2007 549 50 9.1% --- --- --- --- 107 Brazil 10 2006 513 46 9.0% 10 2006 81 10 12.3% 108 Cote d’Ivoire 12 2000 203 18 8.9% --- --- --- --- 109 Malta 3 2008 69 6 8.7% --- --- --- --- 110 Bhutan 3 2008 47 4 8.5% 12 2007 25 6 24.0% 111 Colombia 3 2006 166 14 8.4% 3 2006 102 12 11.8%

" Democratic Republic of the Congo

7 2006 500 42 8.4% 1 2007 108 5 4.6%

112 Samoa 3 2006 49 4 8.2% --- --- --- --- " Somalia 8 2004 256 21 8.2% --- --- --- ---

143

Rank Country Lower or single House Upper House or SenateElections Seats* Women % W Elections Seats* Women % W

" Ukraine 9 2007 450 37 8.2% --- --- --- --- 113 Madagascar 9 2007 127 10 7.9% 4 2008 33 4 12.1% 114 Algeria 5 2007 389 30 7.7% 12 2006 136 4 2.9%

" Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

3 2006 468 36 7.7% --- --- --- ---

115 Congo 6 2007 137 10 7.3% 10 2005 60 8 13.3% 116 Albania 7 2005 140 10 7.1% --- --- --- --- 117 Nigeria 4 2007 358 25 7.0% 4 2007 109 9 8.3% 118 Saint Kitts and

Nevis10 2004 15 1 6.7% --- --- --- ---

119 Mongolia 6 2004 76 5 6.6% --- --- --- --- 120 Jordan 11 2007 110 7 6.4% 11 2007 55 7 12.7% 121 Georgia 5 2008 150 9 6.0% --- --- --- --- 122 Sri Lanka 4 2004 225 13 5.8% --- --- --- --- 123 Chad 4 2002 155 8 5.2% --- --- --- --- 124 Lebanon 5 2005 128 6 4.7% --- --- --- --- 125 Kiribati 8 2007 46 2 4.3% --- --- --- --- 126 Haiti 2 2006 98 4 4.1% 2 2006 30 4 13.3% 127 Vanuatu 7 2004 52 2 3.8% --- --- --- --- 128 Kuwait 2 5 2008 65 2 3.1% --- --- --- --- 129 Comoros 4 2004 33 1 3.0% --- --- --- ---

" Marshall Islands 11 2007 33 1 3.0% --- --- --- --- 130 Iran (Islamic

Republic of)3 2008 286 8 2.8% --- --- --- ---

131 Bahrain 11 2006 40 1 2.5% 12 2006 40 10 25.0% 132 Egypt 11 2005 442 8 1.8% 6 2007 264 18 6.8%

" Sao Tome and Principe

3 2006 55 1 1.8% --- --- --- ---

133 Papua New Guinea 6 2007 109 1 0.9% --- --- --- --- 134 Yemen 4 2003 301 1 0.3% 4 2001 111 2 1.8% 135 Belize 2 2008 32 0 0.0% 3 2008 12 4 33.3%

" Micronesia (Federated States of)

3 2005 14 0 0.0% --- --- --- ---

" Nauru 4 2008 18 0 0.0% --- --- --- --- " Oman 10 2007 84 0 0.0% 11 2007 70 14 20.0% " Palau 11 2004 16 0 0.0% 11 2004 9 0 0.0% " Qatar 6 2006 35 0 0.0% --- --- --- --- " Saudi Arabia 4 2005 150 0 0.0% --- --- --- --- " Solomon Islands 4 2006 50 0 0.0% --- --- --- --- " Tuvalu 8 2006 15 0 0.0% --- --- --- --- " Equatorial Guinea 5 2008 100 ? ? --- --- --- --- " Tonga 4 2008 30 ? ? --- --- --- ---

* Figures correspond to the number of seats currently filled in Parliament 1 – South Africa: The figures on the distribution of seats do not include the 36 special rotating delegates appointed on an ad hoc basis, and all percentages given are therefore calculated on the basis of the 54 permanent seats. 2 – Kuwait: No woman candidate was elected in the 2008 elections. Two women were appointed to the 16-member cabinet sworn in June 2008. As cabinet ministers also sit in parliament, there are two women out of a total of 65 members.

144

3. Women’s rights and struggle against discrimination:

Data of international research

07.03.2008

International survey data demonstrated that majority of population around the world stand for women’s equal rights and share the opinion that government and the United Nations Organization (UNO) need to oppose women’s discrimination.

According to the data obtained during public poll of people of different countries around the world, there is a widespread consensus that it is important for “women to have full equality of rights” compared to men. This is true in Muslim countries as well as Western countries.

Practically in all countries, majority of respondents perceive that in their lifetime women have gained greater equality. Nonetheless, large majorities would like their government and the United Nations to take an active role in preventing discrimination.

The poll was released in advance of International Woman’s Day (March 8), a date recognized by the United Nations and observed around the world. This year also marks the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose second article declares that all are entitled to the same rights and freedoms, regardless of sex as well as race, language, religion, or other status.

The poll of 14,896 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Interviews were conducted in 16 nations representing 58 percent of the world population. In Russia, the Levada Center conducted the poll by way of all-Russian representative sampling of 1600 persons.

For methodological tools and list of agencies that conducted the poll in different countries, also for the full press-release, see www.WorldPublicOpinion.org

QUESTION: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT IS FOR WOMEN TO HAVE FULL EQUALITY OF RIGHTS COMPARED TO MEN?

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all

Depends Difficult to answer

Mexico 89 9 2 0 0 0USA 77 20 2 1 0 1France 75 22 2 2 0 0Great Britain

89 9 1 0 1 0

Russia 35 41 17 3 1 3Ukraine 44 35 15 3 1 2Azerbaijan 55 30 11 3 1 1Egypt 31 59 9 1 0 0Iran 44 34 5 3 2 12Palestine 54 29 9 7 0 1Turkey 80 11 3 3 2 1

145

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all

Depends Difficult to answer

Nigeria 44 32 15 9 1 0China 76 19 2 1 0 1India 41 19 6 6 26 1Indonesia 71 20 4 1 1 3South Korea

43 43 13 2 0 0

Average 59 27 7 3 2 2

QUESTION: DURING YOUR LIFE TIME, DO WOMEN NOW HAVE MORE OR LESS EQUALITY OF RIGHTS AS COMPARED TO MEN IN OUR SOCIETY?

Much more

equality

Somewhat more

equality

Somewhat less equality

Much less

equality

No real changes

Women now have more

equality than men do

Difficult to

answer

Mexico 29 58 5 0 5 1 1USA 37 42 13 3 5 0 0France 18 50 17 4 11 0 0Great Britain

52 34 3 1 9 0 1

Russia 24 39 7 3 19 1 7Ukraine 31 32 6 1 21 2 6Azerbaijan 29 34 7 3 18 5 4Egypt 57 37 4 2 0 1 0Iran 39 36 3 2 4 1 14Palestine 11 30 36 15 5 1 2Turkey 21 48 12 7 8 0 4Nigeria 9 37 33 13 6 1 1China 32 44 18 1 3 0 1India 26 27 6 7 13 14 8Indonesia 25 55 11 3 2 2 1South Korea

23 66 5 1 5 1 0

Average 29 42 12 4 8 2 3

QUESTION: DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN BY EMPLOYERS AND SOCIETY, OR DO YOU THINK THE

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF THING?

Government should make an effort to prevent discrimination against women

Government should not be involved in this kind of thing

Difficult to answer

Mexico 96 3 1USA 82 17 1France 88 11 2Great Britain

88 11 1

Russia 74 14 12Ukraine 77 14 9Azerbaijan 77 15 9Egypt 77 23 0Iran 70 18 12Palestine 77 17 6Turkey 85 11 4Nigeria 76 23 1China 86 11 3India 53 38 9Indonesia 93 6 2South 87 12 1

146

Government should make an effort to prevent discrimination against women

Government should not be involved in this kind of thing

Difficult to answer

KoreaAverage 80 15 4

QUESTION: DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING ENOUGH EFFORT TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN OR DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD DO MORE? (those who

answered Government should not be involved in this kind of thing” to the previous question did NOT have to answer this question).

Is doing enough

Should do more

Government is unduly focused on this issue

Difficult to answer

Mexico 12 83 3 1USA 35 48 17 0France 19 68 11 2Great Britain

33 52 11 2

Russia 23 39 14 23Ukraine 26 46 14 14Azerbaijan 30 40 15 10Egypt 59 17 23 0Iran 24 36 18 22Palestine 19 56 17 5Turkey 22 60 11 5Nigeria 14 61 23 1China 17 70 11 1India 21 23 38 15Indonesia 21 69 6 3South Korea

15 73 12 1

Average 24 53 15 7

QUESTION: DO YOU THINK THE UN SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO FURTHER THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, OR DO YOU THINK THIS IS IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN A

COUNTRY’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS?

Should make efforts to further the rights of women

This would be improper interference in countries’ internal affairs

Difficult to answer

Mexico 88 9 3USA 59 38 2France 74 19 7Great Britain

70 26 5

Russia 52 30 18Ukraine 69 16 16Azerbaijan 66 23 11Egypt 30 70 0Iran 52 36 12Palestine 49 48 3Turkey 70 20 11Nigeria 66 32 2China 86 10 4India 48 28 24Indonesia 74 16 10South Korea

78 21 1

Average 64 28 8

http://www.levada.ru/press/2008030702.html

147