Runet’s new 'Позор России' poll already has winners. Developed in response to the earlier ‘Имя Россия' poll, which nominated Russia’s most remarkable peronality, this site calls on its users to vote for the person they think has disgraced Russia. Leading the pack is Vladimir Putin with the dubious distinction of getting 6548 votes (as of now), making him the number one ‘disgrace of Russia.’ The late Boris Yeltsin, Anatolii Chubais and Mikhail Gorbachev follow.  Stalin is fifth on the list with 676 votes so far. But famous personalities from other fields figure too, such as Leo Tolstoy (the correspondent at webplaneta thinks this may be the result of low-achievers getting payback for having to read the interminably long 'War and Peace') as well as Kseniia Sobchak. Note that the site does not require registration and people cannot vote more than once in 24 hours (which means they can still return the next day to cast the same vote). Putin heading the list has generated great comment on the site. As of now, some 756 users have posted lengthy commentary, mostly praising the site’s administrators for their courage, lashing out at Putin for his patronage of corrupt oligarchs, for the superficiality of reform in agriculture and industry and for oil prices, among other things. Here, once again, I am tantalized by the oft-discussed question of digital-era politics in Russia. My first response to the free-flowing debate of ideas and exchange of political insults is one of optimism about the democratic culture of Runet.  It is something to cheer, isn’t it…this kind of freewheeling political discussion, that is. But I wonder how those who use the internet politically feel about the limited reach of their exercise in public opinion. I ask this because these polls meet with ironic detachment in most media sources and are not taken to be a real meter of public opinion, either in Russia or elsewhere. There seems to be a prevalent sense (correct me if I’m wrong) that such polls and the discussions they generate are riven more by passion and impulse, than serious thought ( as though these are mutually exclusive). Most internet commentary in such forums is often seen to be undisciplined, non-deliberative and superficial.  Instead, the discussions taken seriously are those conducted in exclusive circles on the internet, which are considered deliberative, rational and modulated in grammar, style and temper. 

I don't usually enjoy posing questions about 'real impact' because I think the very exercise of political discussion and the 'right to rant' represents considerable cultural capital on the part of internet users. Yet, the question of internet polls' sphere of influence is an important one as websites continue to outdo each other in creatively tapping into public opinion online. 

In a climate where internet surveys and plebiscites seem not to create waves, how should I read internet polls? Are they empowering for their participants?  Are they a sign of the currents of free thought and speech on Runet, yet unchecked by the state? Are they a sign of more democracy or are they a superficial exercise camouflaging a culture of ‘less democracy’? S.R