Цомартова Ф.А_summery (1139271), страница 2
Текст из файла (страница 2)
To follow up the developments of foreign countries in matters of regulatingactivity of mass media in the electoral process for possible use of this experience inRussian practiceThe object of the research is social relations created as a result ofinvolvement of entities managing mass media outlets in the electoral process.The scope of the research is the system of legal norms that brings order tothe activity of entities managing mass media outlets involved in the electoralprocess in Russia and in foreign countries.The claim of scientific novelty of the research is backed by the fact that itis the first study to examine social relations created as a result of involvement ofentities managing mass media outlets in the electoral process. The submitted workprovides classification of entities managing mass media outlets.
It gives definitionsto the terms informing electorate and electoral campaigning, determines theircharacteristics and differences between the two terms. The study identifies theproblems of legal regulation of media access of candidate and electoralassociations during election campaigns and proposes the ways to solve theseproblems.
Models used for regulating the actions of mass media representatives inelection campaigns in the developed democracies such as the USA, the UK, France8 have been described in the thesis. We have determined their features and suggestedthe ways in which they could be used in Russia.The theoretical and practical significance of the research consists inenriching the body of knowledge in the field of legal regulation of mass media inelection process which allows improving the practice of electoral procedures.The practical significance of the research consists in providing resultsthat can be used for enhancing the effectiveness and refining the legislation in thefield of information support of elections.Moreover the conclusions derived from research can be used by massmedia specialists, students studying law and other disciplines.Methodology and methods of research can be briefly described asintegrated use of systematic, analytical and descriptive methods of studying state,law, democracy, electoral process.
This approach allows analyzing the consideredphenomena as an integrated system. We have also used other general scientificmethods while working at the thesis: comparison, analysis and synthesis, systemicand structural approaches, moving from abstract to concrete; special methods:statistical, sociological; methods developed in the particular disciplines of interestfor the research: comparative legal analysis, formal legal approach, technique fordeveloping legal solution, methods of law interpretation.Main propositions and conclusions to be defended:1.The most pressing issue in the field of our interest related to massmedia (including online resources) is still the problem of relative equality fordissemination of information for actors involved in electoral process, particularlyfor those criticizing the current political party in power.The conducted study has led us to conclude that there are unjustified limitations forfree access to radio and TV broadcasts for parties and candidates who didn’t getenough voters’ support in the previous elections.
In our view such limitations are9 damaging as they prevent the public from being exposed to a richer, diverse rangeof opinions.2. We attempt to prove that it is necessary to add to the legislation adefinition of the term “informing voters” to facilitate the courts making judgmentswhen there is uncertainty among the electoral actors about informing voters andelection campaigning. The author proposes this definition: informing (informingvoters) - is the activity performed by authorized institutes (including entitiesmanaging mass media outlets) during election campaigns which includes bringingto voters’ attention the details of upcoming elections, the procedure, the date, theplace, the manner in which the votes will be counted and the order for the results tobe made public, familiarizing voters with the rights, duties and guarantees for therights of the actors involved in electoral process and other information of the kind.3.
We suggest that certain principles should be followed when informingvoters: objectivity, credibility, equality of rights of candidates and electoralassociations, freedom of press and broadcasting organizations. This will allow todistinguish between informing voters and election campaigning.4.
Public supervision of the electoral process can be performed via publicorganizations, in particular the Public Board for Press Complaints, as anindependent public mediator for resolving information disputes during electioncampaigns. The activity of the Court of Appeal of the President of the RussianFederation for information disputes (1994-2000) during several election campaignsallows us to believe that such organizations can function with efficiency andobjectivity.5. When we evaluate the role of mass media in election campaigns in theUSA, the UK and France, we should acknowledge that while this role is veryimportant, it still isn’t the dominating force in forming the views of voters.
There isa more complex set of factors at play. Election campaigns in the USA and in theUK show examples of candidates who got overwhelmingly bad press butnevertheless achieved success with voters after all. That said the legislation of10 these countries has never intended to strictly regulate mass media and forbidjournalists to openly support or speak against certain candidates and parties.The varying influence that mass media (especially television) has on theaudience in different countries can be explained by differences in political cultures.In some cases we observe traditional preferences (with a considerable segment ofvoters supporting the same party or the same candidate over the course of decadesdespite anything said about the candidate or the party in the media), in other caseswe face a political culture where voters are subjects (when a significant part of theelectorate unconditionally supports the party in power).We believe it would be in the best interests of Russia if public and privatemedia sources (independent from the state) played a more significant role in thelife of society and if media outlets presented a more diverse range of politicalviews.
These issues should certainly be analyzed in further legal researches.6. We view negatively the recent tendency of certain candidates and partyrepresentatives to refuse to participate in debates and we would like to drawattention to this problem. As we see from the practice of various democraticregimes, holding debates is one of the key processes to maintain competition inpolitical life.
The trend for candidates to send to debates their representative as areplacement is also unhelpful for the democratic process, as this creates a mereimitation of debates. We believe it is reasonable to make participation in preelection events such as debates mandatory for all the candidates and to introducepenalties for violating this norm.7. The current Russian legislation contains a number of norms that make itdifficult to have a productive political discussion during an election campaign. Weobject to the content of Part 5.2 of Chapter 56 of the Federal Law “OnFundamental Guarantees…” that bans election campaign materials criticisingpolitical opponents.
We believe that this norm deliberately shrinks politicalcompetition and creates impediments for publishing critical materials that could beimportant for solving acute problems.11 Besides the legislation contradicts itself since a call to vote for a certaincandidate is in itself an appeal not to vote for other candidates. We recommend toexclude this norm from the legislation.8. We believe that productive political competition during an electioncampaign should also include familiarizing the electorate with preferences of highranking state officials including their opinions on parties and candidates. Thus wethink it is unfair and unreasonable to keep the ban on election campaigning forpersons holding state or municipal positions in Subparagraph B of Chapter 48 ofthe Federal Law “On Fundamental Guarantees…” In our opinion this norm is aviolation of the principle of competitiveness of the electoral process. It turns outthat a civil servant who has achieved success in social and economic developmentof a certain region (municipality) has no right to appeal to voters presenting theresults of the work done should he or she aim to take a position of an electedofficial.This limitation was designed in lieu of total domination of state-controlledmass media in political coverage and their unequivocal support of the candidatesfrom government service.
This provision has not changed the problem in any way.Also it is an unfair restriction of rights of a certain category of candidates. Wehaven’t found similar norms within legal framework of any other country.We can also state clearly that this norm has not been implemented, it is notapplied in real political life.9. We consider as wrong the norm introduced by Chapter 16.1 of “The MassMedia Act” which allows suspension of a mass media outlet during electioncampaign. This norm is ineffective and cannot be applied in practice (we have onlyfound one case when it was actually used), although in theory it could be used torestrict media activity.We propose to exclude this norm from “The Mass Media Act”.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
