Between September 6 and 8, 2024, Moscow held elections for the City Duma and municipal councils in the Troitsky and Novomoskovsky Administrative Districts (TiNAO). These elections marked a significant political event for both residents of New Moscow—territories annexed in 2012—and those living in more traditional city districts, such as Kurkino.

09.09.2024 — New Moscow — Despite the government’s claims of a successful and transparent process, questions remain over the lack of media coverage, transparency issues, and the legitimacy of the election results.

A Closer Look at New Moscow’s Municipalities

The election campaign covered several newly established municipal entities in the New Moscow region, including Bekasovo, Vnukovo, Voronovo, Kommunarka, Krasnopakhorsky, Filimonkovsky, and Shcherbinka, as well as the urban district of Troitsk. These areas have become part of Moscow since 2012 and have developed rapidly, making this election pivotal for their future growth.

The residents of these districts have witnessed the expansion of infrastructure, new housing developments, and increased government focus on making New Moscow a vital part of the capital’s overall development strategy. Thus, this political milestone held significant meaning for these newer citizens of the city. Still, it also exposed weaknesses in the electoral system, with limited avenues for independent media coverage and public discourse.

Preliminary Results and Reactions from City Authorities

Immediately after voting concluded, the Moscow City Election Commission (Mosgorizbirkom) quickly announced preliminary results, particularly those from electronic voting—a contentious system that has faced heavy scrutiny. According to the commission, the ruling party, United Russia, secured 38 out of 45 seats in the Moscow City Duma. Meanwhile, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) won three seats, and the New People and A Just Russia — For Truth parties gained one seat each. Independent candidates, who rarely fare well in Russian elections, won two seats, an anomaly that garnered attention.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin boasted of a voter turnout of 40%, nearly double the turnout from the 2019 elections, and declared United Russia’s overwhelming success, with the party allegedly winning in 80% of electoral districts. Sobyanin’s celebratory tone did little to quiet the skepticism of many political observers, who noted that transparency during the election process was sorely lacking. While these results have been touted as a victory for the ruling party, many remain unconvinced until the official and final vote counts are revealed.

Municipal Elections in TiNAO and Kurkino: The Diversity of Candidates

In addition to the City Duma elections, municipal council elections were held in the TiNAO and Kurkino districts, resulting in the selection of 109 new deputies for local councils. The official narrative emphasized candidates’ diversity, including teachers, entrepreneurs, retirees, students, and local activists. This diversity was meant to highlight the inclusivity of the elections and the importance of local governance for all layers of society.

However, despite this purported diversity, many critics argue that the political competition was superficial, given that the major political parties represented—Edinaya Russiaya, CPRF, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), New People, and A Just Russia—are widely viewed as loyal to the Kremlin. Independent candidates, who often face significant barriers to entry, were a minor feature in the elections, further fueling concerns about the actual level of competition.

Challenges and Anomalies in the Voting Process

Despite the high overall turnout numbers, low voter activity was observed in certain districts of New Moscow, particularly on the second day of voting. A significant portion of voters in TiNAO were state employees, leading some analysts to suggest that broader public support in these areas may have been less enthusiastic. This skew in voter turnout raises questions about the extent to which the results genuinely reflect the will of the broader population and the possibility of pressure being exerted on public-sector workers to participate in the elections.

One notable feature of New Moscow is its many territories covered by gardening non-commercial partnerships (SNTs), where residents often spend much of early autumn tending to their plots of land. This factor likely reduced turnout despite the authorities’ efforts to promote online voting. The push for online voting also led to another significant challenge: Mosgorizbirkom reported more than 260 cyberattacks on Moscow’s electronic voting system. While officials stated that these attacks were repelled, their very existence raises severe concerns about the security and integrity of the electoral process.

Lack of Independent Media Coverage: A Major Concern

One of the most troubling aspects of the 2024 elections was the limited activity of independent media outlets. Outside of a few sources, such as the newspaper New Moscow, there was little critical coverage of the election process. New Moscow, founded in 2014, right after New Moscow became part of the capital, remains the only independent and long-standing newspaper dedicated to covering events in the TiNAO (New Moscow). Its editorial team has repeatedly emphasized the importance of civic participation and encouraged residents to vote and report any irregularities they observed during the elections.

The newspaper’s editor, Vitaly Ataev Troshin, called on residents to actively vote and voice their opinions—whether supporting a candidate, offering constructive criticism, or even protesting some aspects of the process. Ataev Troshin emphasized that democratic engagement does not end at the ballot box, and residents should use social media and work with election commissions to ensure their voices are heard.

While Novaya Moskva played a crucial role in encouraging transparency and reporting on the elections, its efforts were severely hampered by the lack of other independent outlets in the region. This media vacuum raises significant concerns about the fairness of the polls and whether residents had access to the full range of information necessary to make informed choices.

Awaiting Final Results: A Critical Moment for Moscow’s Future

Although preliminary results have been announced, the official vote counts are still pending. As the final tallies for in-person and electronic votes are completed, many will watch closely to see if any discrepancies or irregularities emerge. In a political landscape where the media and opposition parties face heavy restrictions, the integrity of Moscow’s elections remains a deeply contentious issue.

While authorities hailed the 2024 elections as a success, they have left many questions unanswered about the actual state of democracy in Russia’s capital. The development of New Moscow and the governance of its growing population hinge on the results of these elections. However, for now, the shadow of a flawed electoral process hangs over the future of these new territories, and their political landscape may be shaped as much by the lack of transparency and independent oversight as by the ballots cast.

In conclusion, while Moscow’s 2024 elections may have produced concrete results on paper, they have also sparked renewed debate over the health of democracy in Russia. With critical, independent voices like New Moscow pushing for transparency and accountability, the struggle for fair representation continues in Russia’s capital’s old and new parts. Whether or not these efforts will lead to meaningful change remains to be seen.