Moscow, 15 October 2003 (RFE/RL) -- A new law meant to
regulate election campaigns in Russia and their coverage by the media is
being challenged even as it is being implemented.
The text of the new law has journalists and election officials alike
scratching their heads over how to interpret a ban on "illegal campaigning."
In a surprise decision, Russia's Constitutional Court has agreed to hear
four different appeals against the new legislation brought by three journalists
and more than 100 State Duma deputies.
All four appeals challenge several provisions of Article 48 and the
law on "guaranteeing voters' rights." Under the law, Russian
media are prohibited from publishing or broadcasting information about
candidates that has nothing to do with official functions or which could
create a "positive or negative image" of a candidate.
For every violation, local election commissions can issue warnings.
After two warnings, the Media Ministry can appeal to a court to suspend
the media organization until after the election.
Theoretically, the law is meant to limit the media's role solely to
"informing" citizens about election campaigns. But its critics
argue it is so vague and far-reaching that almost any election story could
be banned, and that it therefore violates the Russian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to collect, receive, and impart information.
When the appeal hearing opened earlier this week, lawyer Pavel Astakhov
stated the case against the new law. "It's impossible not to have
doubts about the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the law
of 12 July 2003, on 'guaranteeing electors' rights and referendums,' which
introduced a ban on the expression of personal opinion and the discussion
of political problems by citizens and the media, in regard to candidates,
blocs and unions during the campaign period," he said.
However, Central Election Commission Chairman Alexander Veshnyakov,
who initially drafted the amendments with the Kremlin's support, insisted
that the law is fair. "Once again, we carefully analyzed all the
complaints and statements to the Constitutional Court -- all the reasons
and the arguments made by the plaintiffs," he said. "After this
analysis, we concluded that there were no grounds for claiming that [certain]
norms contradict the RF Constitution."
At a news conference today, Veshnyakov accused the media of putting
pressure on the court. Earlier, he called the appeals part of a campaign
against his department.
State Duma Deputy Valerii Grebennikov defended the new law, arguing
that the public would be better informed, as the law bans the media from
taking sides. "As soon as the campaigning starts, you are not allowed
v as a newspaper or a television [channel] -- to communicate your appraisals.
You are only allowed to state the opinions of those taking part in the
campaign," he said.
Another deputy, Sergei Popov,
said that while tougher legislation was necessary to weed out smear campaigns,
Article 48 was an example of a good idea gone too far. "The law was
a step in the right direction," he said. "But at the same time,
many mistakes were made. And in this case, I think that the Russian proverb
is right -- a spoonful of tar will spoil a whole barrel of honey."
Last week, a local newspaper in Kaliningrad was issued a warning for
mentioning in an article that Duma candidate Aleksei Yushenkov is the
son of former Deputy Sergei Yushenkov, who was slain in an apparent contract
hit. According to the local election commission, mentioning this affiliation
is illegal, as it has nothing to do with the candidate's job. The same
commission handed out 15 other warnings to local media outlets.
In Tula, a local election commission decided that references by a local
communist newspaper to two candidates being a "general" and
an "actress" also contradicted the law.
Earlier this month, a Bryansk election commission issued several warnings
to local newspapers -- in one case, for publishing an interview with a
candidate from the Yabloko party but not from competing candidates, in
two other cases for failing to mention when a public-opinion poll had
been conducted and who had paid for the poll
Lawyer Fyodor Kravchenko works for Internews, a non-governmental organization
that supports the open media worldwide. Kravchenko, who lectures local
Russian election commissions on the new legislation, said the law is vague.
"If you're going to give the same unclear text to 1,000 people, then
probably among those 1,000, you will have a few people with an original
way of thinking who will read the law in a completely unexpected way,
as it is not clear enough," he said.
Some observers also say the law's vagueness leaves a lot of room for
arbitrary decisions that could be politically motivated. In the end, however,
the simple fact that the Constitutional Court decided to hear the appeals
is seen as good news by the Russian press. Indeed, Veshnyakov himself
expressed "surprise" at the Constitutional Court's decision
to hear the cases so soon. Most observers had speculated that the court
would postpone the cases until after parliamentary elections in December.
If the Constitutional Court declares all or parts of Article 48 illegal
-- it has three weeks to make up its mind -- its decision would be immediately
applicable, at least in theory. But in practice, there appears to be some
leeway. The State Duma would have to cancel the unconstitutional provisions
and adapt them before they go into force.
See also:
Freedom of Speech
and Media Law in Russia
State Duma elections 2003
|