"We are returning...". Issues of pension provision in the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the VIII convocation.

Timshina Ekaterina Leonidovna PhD in History Associate professor, Department of Linguistics for State Administration Personnel, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation 119571, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82 str.1 k.timshina@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The elections to the State Duma of the VIII convocation of the Russian Federation repeated the result in terms of the number of participants in the 2016 election campaign – 14 parties took part in the electoral race. Such a significant number of participants in the last two federal election cycles is due to the adoption in 2014 of the law "On Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation", which significantly modified many electoral restrictions. According to the amended rules, to register a list of a political party without collecting signatures of voters, which is extremely difficult for small parties to implement in compliance with all the formalities provided for by law, it became sufficient to have party representation in parliament of at least one subject of the Russian Federation or to receive at least 3% of the votes in the previous federal elections. Another important legislative modification was the reduction of the barrier of votes for passage to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, instead of 7%, it became enough to gain 5% of the votes. Thus, for parties whose base level of popularity was in the region of 2-3%, winning seats in parliament on party lists became quite possible, provided there were bright personalities and an active political struggle with new proposals interesting to voters on key topics of concern to society. In 2016, the "miracle of the fifth party" did not happen, only four parties of the previous convocation received seats in the lower house of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation according to party lists. If before the elections to the State Duma of the VII convocation pension issues aroused considerable public interest – in the list of problems of concern to Russians, the problems of pension provision scored 8% ^[1], then in 2021 already 19% of the answers directly related to pension problems (2% – the problems of pensioners are not solved, 6% – reform and raising retirement age, 11% – no increase in pensions ^[2]), while, according to the survey, interest in pension issues was shown not only by people of retirement and pre-retirement age, but also by other age groups. The growing public interest in the problem of pension provision suggested that this issue would become one of the key issues for obtaining additional votes.

The purpose of the study is to identify the significance of the pension issue in the election programs of political parties in the elections to the State Duma, to establish the attitude of the authors of the programs to certain aspects of pension reform, including changes in the retirement age, the direction of further reforms, social protection of pensioners and pre–retirees, in addition, a comparison was made with the position of the parties in 2016. The main sources for the study were the election programs of political parties whose lists were registered by the Central Election Commission for the elections to the lower house of Parliament in 2021, as additional sources, the election programs of 2016 and media appearances of party leaders were involved.

If the Soviet pension system has been studied quite well, among the most comprehensive works can be noted the works of V. S. Andreev, M. L. Zakharov, O. V. Kapustina ^[3-5], then there are much fewer studies on the history of Russian pension provision [for example, 6-8], mainly in the focus of attention of researchers due to constant reforms were economic and legal problems of enforcement of new laws. The views of political parties on the directions of pension provision development were not usually considered in these works.

In the Soviet system, the payment of pensions was mainly financed from the state budget, but in the Russian Federation, as a result of reforms after gaining sovereignty, pension provision began to be carried out from the funds of the newly created Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, formed by contributions from enterprises. The funds of the state budget were attracted under the condition of a deficit in the accounts of the FIU. In addition, in the 1990s, the institute of non-state pension funds (NPFs) appeared, the accumulation of funds in which was carried out at the expense of voluntary contributions from citizens, but the vast majority of the population did not use this method of pension provision. It should be noted that in subsequent years it was not possible to popularize this accumulation tool.

The economic and social upheavals of the 1990s led to the emergence of two global problems in pension provision - non–payments and a low level of pensions. By 1999, the average pension was 67% of the pensioner's subsistence minimum, which was very conditionally determined by the state. In relation to wages, pensions did not reach even 20% ^{[9, pp. 22-23]}, although according to the requirements of the international convention "On Minimum Standards of Social Security" this level should be at least 40% ^[10].

In the early 2000s, there was a certain improvement in the situation - the problem of non–payment of pensions was solved. A new large–scale pension reform has begun - incredibly quickly (in less than a year), a series of federal laws ^[11-14] was adopted, regulating the gradual transition from a distributive to a distributive-accumulative system and expanding the possibilities of the population to voluntarily invest in NPFs. After the reform, the pension was divided into three parts: basic (state guarantee), insurance (pension contributions) and accumulative (funds in a personal account that can be invested in various assets). The size of the pension was now determined not by the length of service, but by the size of salaries and deductions. Almost immediately, the implementation of the reform began to slip: already in 2005, the funded part of the pension for citizens born before 1967 was canceled. The reason for the cancellation was a shortage of funds in the FIU. In 2010, the basic part of the pension was abolished and the first payments of the funded part began.

A new round of reform occurred in 2013, making the procedure for forming a pension for an ordinary citizen even more confusing. The calculation of the labor pension under the insurance system has become the most complicated – after the modification of the legislation, it began to be based on a system of coefficients resulting from work experience, retirement age and salary level. To store the funded part, employees had to choose an NPF or a management company before retirement, and in the absence of an employee's decision, the funds received from him had to be transferred to the insurance part. However, this reform quickly began to slip: citizens were reluctant to invest in NPFs, and the economic crisis and the inability of the FIU to provide the insurance part of the pension to citizens who have reached retirement age led to the freezing of savings contributions.

The state has consolidated its vision of further transformations in the "Strategy for the Long-term Development of the Pension System of the Russian Federation". The main goals, according to its authors, should have been "to achieve the replacement rate with an old-age labor pension of up to 40% of lost earnings with a standard insurance record and average salary; to achieve an acceptable level of pensions for the middle class through participation in corporate and private pension systems; to ensure the average size of an old-age labor pension at the level of 2.5-3 subsistence minimums of a pensioner; achieving the maximum possible balance of the pension system" ^[15]. In general, as a result of long elaboration and numerous departmental compromises, the document turned out to be very vague and vague.

The next and last round of pension reform before the 2021 elections occurred in 2018 and caused the greatest public reaction. The Government has submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation a law on a new pension reform, providing for a change in the retirement age. In the adopted version, for the period 2019-2028, a gradual increase in the retirement age from 55 to 60 years for women and from 60 to 65 years for men should be carried out ^[16]. This initiative caused a negative reaction of citizens, opinion polls showed that 80-90% of respondents demonstrated disagreement with the reform at the time of discussion of the law ^[17-19]. The reasons for discontent, in addition to the deterioration of social conditions, were the sudden introduction of a draft law to parliament, and, as a result, a weak campaign for media support of the bill. Information about the intention to increase the retirement age was not explicitly included in the "Strategy for the long-term development of the pension system of the Russian Federation" (although some experts, for example, A. P. Pochinok, believed that the increase in the age was laid down in the document, since without it it is impossible to achieve the stated characteristics of the length of service ^[20]). During the Duma and presidential election campaigns, the intention to change the pension term was not declared by the winners. Moreover, when a year before the 2016 elections, the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation A.V. Siluanov said that raising the retirement age was overdue and an urgent decision was needed ("the sooner the better") ^[21], this proposal was sharply criticized, including by the leaders of United Russia". In its 2016 election program, the party of power noted successes in improving the pension system, indicating that it was possible to significantly increase the average pension from 894 rubles (in 2000) to 13,200 rubles (in 2016), while maintaining the retirement age ^{[22, p. 13]}. Therefore, the sudden decision to gradually increase the retirement age, adopted in the State Duma by the efforts of United Russia, led to a drop in the popularity of the party and the disappointment of voters. Other political parties with varying degrees of radicalism did not support the bill on pension reform, the only exception was the Party of Pensioners of Russia, which was liquidated in 2019.

Thus, by 2021, the Russian pension system had reached the state of another incomplete transformation, which was not supported by the majority of the population and political organizations, which potentially made the issue of pensions one of the key issues in the election campaign, although the intensity of the discussion somewhat decreased after the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the problems of overcoming which came to the fore of public attention.

There were the same number of participants in the 2021 election campaign as in the previous one, but there were a number of changes in the composition of the parties. PARNAS and "Civil Force" lost the right to participate without collecting signatures. There was a unification of "Just Russia", "Patriots of Russia" and "For the Truth" into a single party "Just Russia – For the Truth". As a result, the Civic Platform, United Russia, the Greens, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), Communists of Russia, LDPR, the Party of Growth, Rodina, the Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice, Fair Russia for Pravda", "Yabloko", "Green Alternative", "New People", the Russian Party of Freedom and Justice (RPSS). The last three parties debuted at the level of elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Despite the relevance and potential electoral capacity of the topic of pension provision, not all parties turned to it during the election race. Both environmental parties ("Green" and "Green Alternative") we focused exclusively on the environmental agenda and the creation of a comfortable living environment. A similar situation was observed in 2016, when the Greens who participated in those elections did not formulate a position on socio-economic issues, declaring "support for the concept of reforms of the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin" ^[23]. Given the ambiguity of the perception of pension reform, the mention of support for reforms was no longer used in the "Green" program of 2021 ^[24]. The issue of pension provision was practically not touched upon in the election program of the Civic Platform party, although in 2018 the head of the party, R. G. Shaikhutdinov, as a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, voted against the draft law on pension reform and criticized it, calling it a "time bomb" to undermine confidence not only in the President of the Russian Federation, but also to the state system as a whole" ^[25], he also noted the imperfection of the pension system and the bureaucratization of the staff of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation. In 2021, in its program, the party limited itself to a statement about the need to "achieve public agreement on key issues" of social policy ^[26]. Pension reform, apparently, refers precisely to these "key issues", where it is necessary to restore the "contour of the people's trust in the state", since, according to R. G. Shaikhutdinov, the government in 2018 conducted it suddenly and cynically, without discussing it and without reaching public agreement ^[25].

If in 2016 only United Russia noted successes in the development of the pension system in the election program, then in 2021 not a single party positively assessed the state of pension provision. The ruling party in the last election program did not assess either the reform or the current state of pension provision. Separate bills introduced by members of United Russia, shortly before the elections, even allowed political scientists to conclude that the party intends to gradually abandon the reform of the retirement age. For example, such assumptions appeared after the introduction by the EP deputy A.V. Baryshev of a bill on early retirement in accordance with the previous age criteria, if a person could not find a job within 12 months ^[27]. However, expert hypotheses turned out to be unfounded, draft bills remained private initiatives of United Russia deputies and no changes in the approved reform were envisaged in the election program.

         For the rest of the parties (especially the parties of the parliamentary opposition), the latest pension reform predictably became one of the main objects of criticism during the electoral race. To emphasize their attitude by the parties of the left side of the political spectrum, negatively colored vocabulary was actively used, designed to maximally focus the attention of the reader of the program on the disapproving attitude of the party to the increase in the retirement age. In the programs it is called "SHAMEFUL PENSION REFORM" ("Communists of Russia"), "shameful law" and "pension robbery" (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), "anti–people pension system" ("Fair Russia - For the Truth"), "anti-social reform" (RPSS) ^[28-31]. Although in 2016 many parties criticized the existing pension system, the semantic tone of criticism was much milder, the active introduction into circulation and the use of negatively colored vocabulary is associated with an increase in the retirement age.

         The cancellation of the last reform has become the most frequently encountered proposal in the pre-election statements of the parties. In addition to the aforementioned left-wing parties that criticized the reform, the LDPR, Rodina and Yabloko spoke out for the counter-reform and the return of the pre-existing retirement age ^[32-34]. The Party of Growth, although it did not directly declare its intention to return to the previous retirement age, proposed to "take a step back" and "carry out an effective and fair pension reform", but did not specify its proposals for a new reform ^[35]. The Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice introduced an initiative to abandon the concept of "retirement age" altogether and switch to calculating pensions for work experience and "services to society", the latter subjective and incalculable term was not explained by the party ^[36]. The opposition parties represented before the elections in the State Duma of the Russian Federation (the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, Just Russia) actively used the parliamentary rostrum to attract media attention to their position on the return of the retirement age. All three parties have introduced bills to abolish pension reform for all citizens or for individuals of certain professions. For example, the "Fair Russia" bill introduced in March 2021 proposed to completely cancel the reform and prohibit changing the retirement age until 2035 ^[37], and in August 2021 the Communist Party submitted its draft pension counter-reform ^[41]. Such bills had no chance to be adopted due to the lack of a parliamentary majority, and the latest draft of the Communist Party could not even be discussed by the Duma of the VII convocation due to the expiration of their powers, but they provided the parties with media attention on an important issue for the election race shortly before the vote.

         The second most common proposal was an increase in the size of pensions, while the approach to the presentation of pension growth has changed. If in 2016 the majority of parties insisted on increasing pensions to 40% of lost earnings (except for Fair Russia, which proposed to bring it to the level of 60% ^[38]), based on the requirements of the international convention "On Minimum Standards of Social Security", which at the time of the election had not yet been ratified by the Russian Federation, then in the electoral In the 2021 campaign, it became popular to specify the exact amount of the minimum pension in rubles. Such a presentation was more understandable to the voter and solved the problem of fairly common low salaries, as government officials have repeatedly recognized in Russia there is a phenomenon of the "working poor", i.e. about 12 million citizens, despite constant employment, belong to the category of the poor ^{[42, p. 6]}. For such voters, the promise of a pension in the amount of 40% of the lost salary would not be attractive. "Communists of Russia" offered an average labor pension of 40,000 rubles ^[28], RPSS – a minimum pension of 24 thousand rubles ^[31], "Fair Russia – For the Truth" – a minimum pension of 31 thousand rubles ^[30]. The LDPR promised to increase the minimum pension to three subsistence minimums ^[32], and Rodina promised to increase the size of all pensions by two to three times ^[33].

Rodina proposed to implement the last proposal by liquidating the FIU. According to the party, the liquidation of the state Pension fund and the nationalization of its "palaces" in the regions should lead to the possibility of increasing pensions up to three times. Criticism of the FIU is the third most common of pension topics in election programs. However, different approaches were proposed: the RPPS also proposed to liquidate the FIU, the "Communists of Russia" – a return to the Soviet system, the LDPR – strict opposition control over all pension funds. As an alternative to the FIU, direct financing of pensions from the state budget or the use of a state bank for the collection and accumulation of funds was proposed. Criticism of the FIU in the election campaign of 2021 increased and promises of its liquidation appeared, in 2016 only the "Civil Force" and the RPPS emphasized its activities, criticizing its corruption and poor efficiency.

         The remaining party proposals in the field of pension provision are distributed within one or two electoral programs. United Russia found itself in the most difficult situation. The pension reform brought the party a significant decline in ratings, in connection with these, the question arose – how the party should reflect its further actions in the program and evaluate the previous ones. As a result, the most concise and neutral option was chosen. The ruling party did not touch on any of the pressing issues and completely ignored the pension reform. The only proposal that can be associated with the reform is the promise of "guaranteed control over the observance of the rights of workers of pre-retirement age" ^[39]. First of all, this proposal referred to the need to protect jobs for people whose retirement age was increased, and they felt vulnerable, risking being left without a job and pension. Since most of the parties intended to cancel the reform and return to the previous retirement age, United Russia was the only party that focused on this issue. Another area of United Russia's proposals was a set of ideas that can be combined under the fashionable term "digitalization". The party proposed the appointment automatically (without additional applications) of federal and regional social supplements to pensions, early pensions to citizens of pre-retirement age, disability and old-age pensions, as well as automatic information about the estimated amount of pensions and the amount of pension savings ^[39]. Unexpectedly, a similar proposal in the field of digitalization was made by the party "Communists of Russia", which usually advocates a return to Soviet practices. The Communists proposed that "in each region, social protection authorities, according to the new socialist laws, will be required to maintain a pensioner's social assistance passport, according to which each pensioner will be able to monitor the benefits and payments due to him in real time, as well as make applications for social services, assistance, sanatorium treatment" ^[28].

         Some parties have introduced new initiatives in terms of pension provision. "New people" supported the modernization of the formation of the funded part of the pension: "to deduct part of the income tax (3 percentage points) to an individual investment account ... this pension contribution can be received in regular payments after reaching the target age or inherited ^[40]. The party even included in the program a sample calculation of the cumulative part in accordance with the proposed system. The Party of Growth announced a "new effective and fair reform" that "stimulates development" ^[35] but at the same time it is impossible to detail the main provisions of the reform in any way from the program. Judging by the context, it can be assumed that it would affect the funded part of the pension. An unusual innovation was introduced into the program by the Yabloko party, proposing to use the option of "natural rent", when part of the income from the export of natural resources is credited to individual savings accounts of citizens. ^[34]

         The issue of additional support for the category of pensioners "children of war" (people who were children at the time of the Great Patriotic War, usually include people born in the interval 1923-1928 and May 9 - September 3, 1945, the established dating has not yet been worked out in the legislation) can be attributed to the outgoing agenda. In 2016, in the election campaign of three parties (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, "Fair Russia", "Communists of Russia"), a significant place was given to their support. Since 2011, parliamentary parties have regularly submitted to the State Duma draft proposals of bills on additional support for "children of war", so by 2016 they had ready-made developments on this issue in the form of bills. For example, Fair Russia even recorded the amount of payments that it intended to achieve for the "children of war" (at least 1,000 rubles) ^[38]. In 2016, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Fair Russia, by introducing bills on social support for "war children" on the eve of elections and their active media coverage, gained public attention. The parties used a similar tactic in 2021, but they have already introduced bills on the counter-reform of the retirement age.

In 2021, only the "Communists of Russia" kept the mention of "children of war" in the program, while it is impossible to conclude from the program about specific support measures. The withdrawal of the theme of "children of war" from the programs of parliamentary parties, apparently, is connected with the adoption of regional laws dedicated to their support. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Fair Russia have made efforts to change regional legislation, achieving some local successes, but the real breakthrough was made in the interval 2016-2021, when it was possible to adopt laws in major key regions, including Moscow and St. Petersburg, which somewhat reduced the need for a federal law.

Although issues related to pension provision were fairly well represented in the election programs for the elections of deputies of the State Duma of the VIII convocation, it cannot be argued that political parties have fully realized their capabilities. Only one of the parties proposed a new vision for the further development of pension reform ("New People"), but even that, in fact, was the adjustment of only one part of the pension. All other proposals were either based around the topic of returning to the pre-reform retirement age, or on the liquidation of the Pension Fund of Russia. In the context of the pre-election struggle, promises to abolish the reform gave an electoral advantage over United Russia, but did not make significant changes to the system itself. Although many parties have declared the need to increase pensions and ensure a decent old age, they could not offer real sources for financing significant growth – in most programs this issue remained unlit, the proposal to redistribute the costs of the Pension Fund for the payment of pensions would hardly be able to ensure their significant growth. It was not possible to supplement the rather weak and demanding improvement of the state "Strategy for the Long-term Development of the pension system", many proposals, especially in terms of a sharp increase in pensions, were more populist than feasible. Basically, all the most specifically formulated proposals were related to a return in one form or another to the Soviet system, where pension provision was carried out by the state from the budget.

If we do not take into account the proposals for the return of the retirement age, which ensured the growth of appeals to the topic of pensions in election programs, then in comparison with the election campaigns of 2016 and 2021, the volume of proposals in the field of pension provision will be at the same level. It is even possible to note a slight decrease due to the reduction of proposals to support the "children of war", which were among the most developed in 2016.

Summing up, it can be stated that political parties poorly realized their influence opportunities when society's attention to the pension issue against the background of unpopular pension reform was maximum.