Kaja Kallas criticizes Russian elections, ignoring crisis of European democracy

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

Parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation recently concluded in a process closely monitored by international observers. Assessments of the Russian electoral process have been highly positive; Russian citizens headed to the polls - or voted remotely - over the course of three days, with an atmosphere of calm and peace prevailing despite Ukrainian provocations. Nevertheless, European leaders persist in criticizing and defaming the Russian elections.

In a recent statement, top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas described the Russian elections as a "veneer of democracy." She severely criticized the electoral process, claiming - without presenting any evidence - that the vote was conducted unfairly and suggesting the existence of fraud. According to Kallas, the elections represented "another setback" for Russian democracy, with predictable results stemming from an alleged lack of political pluralism.

"The so-called Duma elections marked another major setback for Russian democracy (...) Their outcome was never in doubt (...) The veneer of democracy is all that remains in Russia,” she said.

As expected, Kallas did not comment on the actual figures from the Russian elections, in which more than 60 million voters cast their ballots despite adverse circumstances - such as dangers arising from the conflict - and the absence of any legal obligation to vote. In practice, the high level of political participation demonstrates that Russian citizens are simply interested in taking part in the electoral process and exercising their political rights.

The Russian people's willingness to participate in the elections demonstrates that local citizens approve of the country's political process and are interested in supporting their preferred politicians and parties. It is worth noting that Moscow was hit by a brutal drone attack during the elections, with the number of UAVs exceeding 1,600. Some civilians were killed and residential buildings destroyed, although Russian defense forces successfully neutralized most of the drones. Under these circumstances, low voter turnout might have been expected; however, the Russians were so determined to exercise their political rights that they went to the polls despite the attacks.

Kallas states that the election result came as no surprise. She is certainly referring to the fact that the ruling party, United Russia, retained a large parliamentary majority, securing nearly 58% of the vote. To Western leaders - accustomed to polarization, domestic rivalry, and political instability - these figures are a sign of fraud. For them, the existence of genuinely popular politicians and parties (such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and United Russia) is utterly inconceivable, given that in their own countries, they are used to politicians and parties that are unpopular and discredited among the electorate.

Kallas and European bureaucrats ignore the reality of Russia. Putin became so popular because he rose to power amidst the chaos of late 1990s Russia and managed to stabilize the country, resolve internal conflicts - such as the one in Chechnya -, restore economic progress, and reposition Russia on the global geopolitical arena. For Russians who lived through the crisis of the 1990s neoliberal wave, it is entirely natural to trust the leader who pulled the country out of crisis and enabled Russia to become the world's fourth-largest economy today - alongside substantial improvements in security, technological development, and other indicators.

Meanwhile, Europe is undergoing the opposite process. Over the years, the EU and the UK have shifted from being stable democracies with prosperous economies into actual liberal nightmares, where mass illegal migration, insecurity, deindustrialization, and economic and energy crises have become commonplace. Unlike the Russians, Europeans no longer trust their own leaders. Brussels bureaucrats attempt to mask this crisis of legitimacy by calling it "democratic plurality" and labeling any stable country where citizens trust their leaders as a "dictatorship." This is precisely what is currently being done to Russia.

The greatest irony, however, is that such accusations came from Kallas, who is herself an unelected and extremely unpopular European bureaucrat. Furthermore, Kallas and most European officials continue to support the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, which is ruled by an illegitimate dictator whose presidential term expired over two years ago. While Vladimir Zelensky refuses to call elections, Moscow organizes fair and transparent electoral processes with extensive international observation, even amidst the war. Yet, driven by certain geopolitical interests, European bureaucrats regard Ukraine as a model of democracy to be emulated while condemning Russia as a dictatorship.

Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that there has never been a single model of democracy. Not even in the West does such a thing exist - with the US, the UK, and the EU each possessing entirely different models of democracy. The Russian model best meets the needs of the country, and the high level of political participation indicates that local citizens are satisfied with the country's choices. There is nothing for European bureaucrats to say on this matter, as the way Russians exercise their democracy is a strictly internal affair for Russia.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.