08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

According to OSCE, presidential election in March 2004 failed to meet international standards ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46144],  [ID 11087]

"Incumbent President Vladimir Putin, who was first elected president in 2000, was reelected in March 2004 by a wide margin. The OSCE, which observed the elections, offered a positive evaluation of the technical conduct of the balloting but concluded that the overall election process, marred by widespread misuse of administrative resources, systematically biased campaign coverage, and inequitable treatment of political parties, failed to meet international standards. Although the legal requirements for televised political debates and free time for party candidates to present their views were observed, the government used its influence over the media, particularly the electronic media, to promote President Putin, resulting in coverage that was heavily biased (see section 2.a.)."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Almost uniformly favourable media contribute to Putin’s unchallenged victory in the presidential election ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41473],  [ID 11088]

"With the national broadcast media and most print media uniformly favorable to incumbent President Putin, no challenger was able to mount a respectable challenge in the March 2004 presidential election. Putin, who refused to take part in debates with his challengers, received 71.4 percent of the vote to 13.7 for his closest rival, Communist Nikolai Kharitonov, in a first-round victory; voter turnout was 64.3 percent. […]
In the presidential election of March 2004, state dominance of the media was in full display, debate was absent, and Putin won a first-round victory with 71.4 percent of the vote, more than five times that of his closest rival."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Extensive bias in the media coverage; questions of vote manipulation ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41473],  [ID 11089]

"The December 2003 Duma election was marred by extensive bias in media coverage. In the run up to the vote, opposition political parties widely criticized the distorted and unbalanced coverage of their campaigns and the limits placed on their ability to reach voters through the airwaves. Questions of vote manipulation were raised when two liberal opposition parties fell just short of the 5 percent threshold required for representation, despite exit polls that showed they had surpassed it. The Kremlin-controlled Unity Party captured 306 of the Duma’s 450 seats."

Document(s): Open document

15.06.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Domestic and international observers do not consider presidential election to be fair ("Nations in Transit 2005") [#32939],  [ID 11090]

"Although Russia holds regular elections at the national level based on universal suffrage, domestic and international observers do not consider them to be fair. In the March 2004 presidential elections, incumbent Vladimir Putin won 71.31 percent of the vote but secured this victory by tilting the field strongly in his favor. Most major politicians did not compete, leaving Putin to fight second-tier opponents. Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky delivered the most mocking response by running his bodyguard in his place. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reported that "the process overall did not adequately reflect principles necessary for a healthy democratic election." […]
The Voice Association for the Protection of Voters' Rights reported cases where municipal workers were ordered to vote, sometimes for one particular candidate; members of the military were told to report the time they voted; and students faced the threat of lost housing if they did not vote. The association is headquartered in Moscow and is affiliated with the National Democratic Institute."

Document(s): Open document

15.06.2005 - Source: Freedom House

State-controlled media used to promote Putin’s candidacy; Putin received 69 percent of the campaign coverage, but did not participate in the debate ("Nations in Transit 2005") [#32939],  [ID 11091]

"Most important, Putin received an overwhelming 69 percent of the campaign coverage on the main television networks' news programs, claimed the Union of Journalists. Needless to say, almost all of this coverage was positive. Opponents received much less news coverage, and there was considerable negative reporting about their activities. The Central Electoral Commission did nothing to counteract this bias.
Although Russia's major television networks offered opportunities for the candidates to debate, Putin chose not to participate. The president's decision not to discuss his policies face-to-face with his opponents deprived voters of the opportunity to see how he would defend his choices against hostile questioning. Without Putin's participation, the debates merely brought together candidates with no chance of winning. First Channel and RTR broadcast these debates mainly early in the morning, when viewership was likely to be small."

Document(s): Open document

15.06.2005 - Source: Freedom House

„Implausible turnout and result figures“ in some regions; governors manipulate the vote to win future concessions from the federal government ("Nations in Transit 2005") [#32939],  [ID 11092]

"In addition to using the state-controlled media to promote Putin's candidacy, the Kremlin lined up political machines run by the country's governors to ensure a solid vote for Putin. Several regions delivered "implausible turnout and result figures," noted OSCE analysis: Dagestan (turnout, 94.1 percent; share of votes for Putin, 94.6 percent), Mordovia (94.6 percent; 91.3 percent), Bashkortostan (89 percent; 91.8 percent), Ingushetia (96.2 percent; 98.2 percent), Tatarstan (83.2 percent; 86.5 percent), and Chechnya (94 percent; 92.3 percent). In other parts of Russia, turnout was much lower and in some places dipped below the mandatory 50 percent threshold for the country as a whole. Putin's vote share was much higher in the regions where turnout was the highest. In fact, these figures are so high and out of line with those of the rest of the country that it is obvious that regional leaders seeking favor with the president manipulated the vote to improve their chance of winning future concessions from the federal government. In most regions of Russia, the economy is heavily dependent on governors."

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Concerns expressed regarding the independence of the media and the absence of the democratic pluralism during the 14 March 2004 presidential election campaign ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710],  [ID 11093]

"95. Two important elections have been held in the Russian Federation since the last full monitoring report in 2002. On 7 December 2003 the elections to the lower house of the Russian parliament – the State Duma – were carried out. On 14 March 2004, the incumbent president Vladimir Putin overwhelmingly won the presidential contest. Both these elections were observed by Assembly delegations, which strongly criticised biased media coverage and the use of administrative resources in favour of President Putin and his political allies.

[...]

98. The observers of the presidential election on 14 March 2004 made similar observations with regard to the media coverage of the elections. A joint ODIHR/Assembly press release concluded that the election was generally well administered but lacked elements of genuine democratic contest.

99. The report of the Assembly's Ad hoc Committee48, which was a part of the International Election Observation Mission, re-iterated the need for independent public television. It concluded that during the presidential election the state-controlled media had displayed clear bias in favour of the incumbent President in news presentation and coverage of the campaign and that the authorities failed to take adequate corrective action.

100. The report refers to the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring of the media coverage of the election which concluded that the State media failed to meet its legal obligation to provide equal treatment to all candidates. The report also includes the evaluation of the independent media monitors, the presidential election in 2004, as compared to the previous elections in 2000, meant a deplorable step towards further degradation and discrediting elections as an institute of democracy. While in the election campaign 2000 less than one third of the total airtime was allotted to Mr Putin, four years later that share increased by almost 50%49.

101. In conclusion, the Ad hoc Committee expressed its main concerns regarding the independence of the media and the absence of the democratic pluralism during the election campaign. The Russian media failed to provide a fair and objective coverage of the election campaign. The major part of the airtime and newspaper pages devoted to elections was accorded to the incumbent President. The refusal of President Putin to participate in open democratic debates, although in conformity with law, was seen by the members of the ad hoc Committee as a step back in the democratic environment in the country. The ad hoc Committee called for the introduction of independent public television in Russia with no further delay50."

Document(s): Open document

18.03.2004 - Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting

North Caucasus: sharp differences between official figures and reported turnout in the presidential election reported ("Putin Landslide Raises Eyebrows") [#20530],  [ID 11094]

"Russia’s Central Election Commission says newly re-elected president Vladimir Putin received a massive show of support from the North Caucasus in the March 14 election, but this contrasts sharply with reports from polling stations throughout the region that suggest a relatively low turnout.

Official results say Putin won his biggest successes in the region, polling more than 96 per cent of votes cast in Kabardino-Balkaria, more than 92 per cent in Ingushetia, 91 per cent support in North Ossetia, and 94 per cent both in war-ravaged Chechnya and in Dagestan. These five republics are among the top ten Russian regions that voted for Putin and had the highest recorded turnout in Russia, with all of them including Chechnya, reporting voter participation at around 90 per cent.

However observers and opposition activists – even while conceding Putin’s victory – say these figures reflect widespread falsification of the vote.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

15.03.2004 - Source: BBC News

Presidential election has failed to meet democratic standards, according to European election observers ("Observers condemn Russia election") [#20411],  [ID 11095]

"Sunday's poll did not meet criteria "necessary for a healthy democratic election process", said chief observer Julian Peel Yates in Moscow.

Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe took part in the mission.
[...]
At a news conference in Moscow, Mr Yates criticised the role of state-controlled media in the run-up to the election.
[...]
"Essential elements...such as vibrant political discourse and meaningful pluralism were lacking," he said.

The OSCE had also criticised December's election to Russia's lower house of parliament - the Duma - as unfair and biased towards Putin's allies.

At the same time, Mr Yates acknowledged that Sunday's election was well administered.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

14.03.2004 - Source: BBC News

Putin won the presidential election by 71.2% of the vote ("Russia's Putin sweeps to victory") [#20413],  [ID 11096]

"With more than 99% of the ballots counted, Mr Putin had 71.2% support, while his nearest rival had only 13.7%.

At a news conference hours after the polls closed, Mr Putin vowed to push ahead with economic reforms.

He also dismissed criticism from US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had suggested that Mr Putin's rivals had been denied media access.
[...]

RUSSIA VOTES FOR PUTIN

1 Vladimir Putin: 71.2%
2 Nikolai Kharitonov: 13.7%
3 Sergei Glazyev: 4.1%
4 Irina Khakamada: 3.9%
5 Against all: 3.5%
6 Oleg Malyshkin: 2%
7 Sergei Mironov: 0.8%

Central Election Committee figures (99% of votes counted)
[...]
Russia's election officials said 64.3% of the registered voters cast ballots.
[...]
About 95,000 polling stations across 11 time zones from the far east to Kaliningrad on the Baltic sea recorded the ballots of 109m registered voters.

Russian voters had been offered incentives to cast their ballots, from vouchers for free haircuts for pensioners to cinema tickets for young people, Reuters news agency reported.

Mr Putin's rival candidates have complained during the campaign about their lack of access to state media."

Document(s): Open document

14.03.2004 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Statement of preliminary findings on 14 March presidential elections ("Presidential Elections 14 March 2004 - OSCE/ODIHR Preliminary Statement") [#20397],  [ID 11097]

"[...] The 14 March 2004 Presidential election was generally well administered. The Central Election
Commission (CEC) demonstrated professionalism in the technical preparations for the election.
However, the election process overall did not adequately reflect principles necessary for a healthy
democratic election process: essential elements of the OSCE commitments and Council of Europe
standards for democratic elections, such as a vibrant political discourse and meaningful pluralism,
were lacking. The election process failed to meet important commitments concerning treatment by the
State-controlled media on a non-discriminatory basis, and secrecy of the ballot.
The nature of the election process, whereby the incumbent refrained in most respects from
conventional campaign discourse, limits the possibilities to draw conclusions about the robustness of
the framework for democratic elections when tested in a more competitive environment. The
incumbent maintained a high measure of public approval ratings throughout the presidential contest, as
reflected in the preliminary results, and faced a field of opponents who commanded little apparent
public support.
The Presidential election came barely three months after elections to the State Duma. Those elections
had produced a significant shift in the configuration of Russian parliamentary politics, and had left a
number of political parties preoccupied with the consequences of a loss of a federal parliamentary
presence or a weakened party machinery. In this setting, the majority of presidential candidates
entered the race without party backing or with fragmented party support.
On election day, voting and counting were carried out in a generally calm and peaceful manner.
However, the conduct of elections for a multiplicity of other public offices in many parts of the
country, held contemporaneously with the Presidential election, burdened the election administration
and created conditions conducive to accidental or deliberate procedural irregularities. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

09.03.2004 - Source: Prima News

Rally "Against dictatorship - For Russia Without Putin" to be held on March 10 in Moscow ("Rally in Moscow “For Russia without Putin” will go ahead") [#20312],  [ID 11098]

Document(s): Open document

10.02.2004 - Source: BBC News

A Russian presidential candidate, who went missing for five days, has arrived back in Moscow from Ukraine/ he said he was abused and that he might not run for the president on the 14 March election ("Missing Russian candidate returns") [#19246],  [ID 11099]

Document(s): Open document