Russia 1996: Zyuganov vs Zhirinovsky

[mencken]

Polling at the time indicated a high probability of this being the runoff. How would this runoff scenario have actually unfolded?

[Crumpets]

Okay, I'll preface this by saying that it's basically impossible to know for sure. But, one big observation to make is that both Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky as well as Yelstin, although to a lesser extent were running very nationalistic campaigns, and while the exact policies of Russia would have been different between the Communists and the LDPR, Russia's position in the global system probably wouldn't have waivered much from the path it took in reality.

Now, looking at their respective voting blocs - electoral demographics and geography have changed little since 1996. Despite United Russia emerging as the dominant political force across the country, communists continue to do well in the west, the grain belt, and in industrial cities. Meanwhile, the nationalists tend to do better in Siberia and other remote areas - basically the areas Yelstin won in 1996 and where Putin and Zhironovsky over-performed in 2012. I made a map of how the parties did in in 2012 relative to their national total a while back for a different thread:


United Russia
Communists
LDPR
Prokhorov
A Just Russia

So that gives you some sense of what the map might have looked like. Now, in order to determine who would have actually won, I think it's helpful to look at how some of the other post-Soviet states "voted" in the 1990s - in a lot of cases, there really wasn't much of a vote, but it's still useful to see what kind of government emerged:

Ukraine - Economically liberal kleptocracy, generally pro-Russian
Belarus - Dictatorship under a largely pro-Russian, neo-Soviet, nationalist, agrarian banner
Moldova - Agrarianism followed by communism
(Transnistria) - Neo-Soviet pro-Russian nationalists, similar to Belarus
Georgia - Basically mob bosses running various factions of the country
Armenia - Economically liberal, nationalist kleptocracy
Azerbaijan+Central Asia - Big tent nationalists

So, except for Moldova and arguably Transnistria and Belarus, the rulers in the 90s were generally closer in profile to Zhirinovsky than Zyuganov. At the same time, few of them were anywhere near as extreme in their nationalism as Zhirinovsky was, but perhaps this has to do more with the realities of governing than a general rejection of ultra-nationalism.

All in all, I think Zhirinovsky would have had the upper-hand, but it would have been close. In 1995 the communists had a fantastic showing in the Duma elections compared to the LDPR, and, of course, Zhirinovsky ended up finishing well behind Zyuganov in the first round of voting. If he had made the second round, however, I think a lot of anti-Zyuganov forces and Yeltsin voters would have coalesced around the LDPR. But again, I doubt the direction of the country would have radically changed either way.


And, of course, this whole discussion is meaningless, as we all know Zyuganov would have won on account of his baldness.

[Kingpoleon]

Either one probably leads to a coup. Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Viktor Chernomyrdin, Alexander Lebed, and Alexander Podrabinek would not let Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky rule for long.

[Zuza]

Meanwhile, the nationalists tend to do better in Siberia and other remote areas - basically the areas Yelstin won in 1996 and where Putin and Zhironovsky over-performed in 2012. I made a map of how the parties did in in 2012 relative to their national total a while back for a different thread:


United Russia
Communists
LDPR
Prokhorov
A Just Russia

Places where Putin over-performed are just the places where the largest vote fraud happened. But other parts of the map reflect actual voting patterns very well (e. g. most of the gray regions are indeed "liberal strongholds"). Maps for each candidate or maps like Zyuganov vs Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov vs Prokhorov would be also very interesting. Though I'd say that the most noticeable difference is not between remote and non-remote areas, but between North and South, and I would describe this split as a split between the "Red Belt" (South) and the non-communist North. Not just Zhirinovsky but also liberal candidates tend to over-perform in the North. But yes, it also seems like Zhirinovsky is particularly popular in Siberia and the Far East.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think to lump, say, Zhirinovsky, Gamsakhurdia and Nazarbayev together because they all can be described as nationalists is like say there isn't much difference between Romney, Ron Paul and Trump because they are all Republicans. Even worse, since "nationalism" is an especially vague word. I suspect the first thing that comes to a mind of an average Russian when he thinks about Zhirinovsky is not that he is nationalist but his personal qualities: those who dislike him would say he is a dangerous psychopath or, at best, a clown, and many of his supporters are attracted mostly by his eccentricity and craziness (and he also believed to get a lot of protest votes). Many Russian nationalists also support him, of course (at least as a lesser evil in their eyes)... but many of them also support Zyuganov. Depending on how you define nationalism, it can turn out that Zyuganov and his average voter is more nationalist and more consistent in his nationalism than Zhirinosky and his average voter respectively.

This is probably especially true for 90s: early LDPR included quite a few people not known as nationalists at all but well known for their extravagant and eccentric behavior, e. g. Marychev and Mitrofanov.

Zhirinovsky was a kind of Russian Donald Trump (especially Trump at the early stages of his campaign when not everyone took him seriously; of course, if Zhirinovsky managed to pass in the second round and especially he would win elections, people will start to view him differently too). And Trump probably has a more coherent ideology, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tend to agree. Despite his seemingly extremist political positions, Zhirinovsky many times cooperated with government both under Yeltsin and under Putin. There is even a theory that he always was a Kremlin provocateur :-).

And Zyuganov's victory also could end up like Voronin's victory in Moldova: some changes would happen, but not radical. But nobody can be sure in anything.

[Zuza]

Either one probably leads to a coup. Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Viktor Chernomyrdin, Alexander Lebed, and Alexander Podrabinek would not let Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky rule for long.

Podrabinek never was a powerful person, not even remotely. He isn't politician at all, just journalist and activist. Maybe you confused him with someone else.

[Kingpoleon]

Either one probably leads to a coup. Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Viktor Chernomyrdin, Alexander Lebed, and Alexander Podrabinek would not let Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky rule for long.

Podrabinek never was a powerful person, not even remotely. He isn't politician at all, just journalist and activist. Maybe you confused him with someone else.

Journalists have a potential for power that is often underestimated. It is fortunate for Putin that he has the more powerful Romanovs semi-allied with him, because otherwise the Romanovs very well might be willing to work with Yeltsin's gang.

Podrabinek has the potential to become dangerous. In a case like this, I imagine he would begin trying to lead up a Russian democratic news source.