A Colored Revolution in Strasburg?

There was a lot of hype by United Russia and Nashi (the Kremlin sponsored youth group) that following the Duma elections a western sponsored demonstration would begin seeking to annul the elections (as was alleged to have happened in Ukraine in 2003) - see my previous post regarding the need for Putin's team to occupy the squares and buildings in order to keep Kasparov, Kasyanov, and Limonov from seizing power. This has not happened (and was more likely a ploy to encourage more Russians to vote for United Russia as a patriotic move). Since the elections, there has been serious criticism from the west: there has been criticism from the EU and Bush (although Sarkozy seems to have called Putin and offered his congratulations). But in terms of mass demonstrations, the western backed parties - Kasparov and his Other Russia group - have demonstrated how little credibility they have in the country by being unable to really stage any serious protests.

However, this is not to say that opposition parties are not seeking to annul the elections. Today, the Russian Communist party has filed a number of claims with the election commission to annul the elections.

They claim:
1. that there was not equal coverage of all the parties on television
2. They also argue that United Russia's use of so-called icebreakers (see my previous post - A Potemkin Party) - is a violation of election laws since the voters were essentially voting for the sitting government and not a distinct political party.
3. They argue that the Election Commission changed the ballets twice in the month before the election which is a violation of election laws.
4. They argue that Vladimir Putin wrongly used his position as President to campaign for United Russia.
5. They argue that the Election Commission has been negligent in not following up on charges of election violations.

The Election Commission has already said that it will rule on these claims on Friday, the 7th of December, leaving little doubt that it will deny these claims.
A Communist spokesman was not hopeful about the validity of these claims, saying that the Election Commission could have spent more time looking at these claims (they have until the 15th of December to declare the official results) but that their decision to announce on Sat and give a response to the claim by Friday suggests they are not taking it seriously.

The Communists are also preparing a formal legal challenge (that due to the volume of complaints will not be ready for a couple of months) to the elections (with the Union of Right Forces, a pro-western liberal market party that polled about 1% of the vote) in the Russian Supreme Court and, if not successful there, will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasburg. In 2003, the Russian Communist Party had petitioned the ECHR unsuccessfully.

The real question about these claims - particularly since they will not be filed until early next year - is what remedy can the courts really give?
The ECHR has a high enforcement rate when it comes to Russia because they generally only fine (small amounts) the Russian government money for its human rights violations and Russia usually pays. Clearly, the ECHR could not invalidate the elections themselves. Thus, the meaning of these claims is largely symbolic (they could fine the Russian government a paltry amount for human rights violations during the election). Thus, there remedy would be purely symbolic. But, intriguingly, given that they are symbolic claims anyway and that this time around the European Community is much more worried about Russian backsliding on democracy: will the ECHR adjudicate these claims in order to give Russia a bloody nose for the alleged violations that took place before the Duma elections? It is certainly more likely that they will accept it this time around then in 2003. As always, stay tuned.