MOSCOW: President Vladimir Putin was fretting on Saturday night, but his anxiety had little to do with Sunday’s parliamentary election.

There were additions to the only political family with real power in Russia — the president’s labrador, Poni, had had eight puppies.

Mr Putin has not had to worry about his grip on power for years, and Sunday’s elections for the 450-seat Duma parliament, in which 110 million people were registered to vote, were never likely to cost him any sleep.

By last night his party, United Russia, appeared to have increased its lead over the Communists.

The overall result was never in question. The scale of Mr Putin’s victory was interesting only because it determined how unchecked the Kremlin head’s executive power would be over the next four years, since half the seats would be distributed according to the proportion of votes cast for each party.

Even the turnout was not vitally important. No seat would be left unfilled, so a high number of spoiled ballots or absent voters would not lessen the number of seats a party could get.

With an estimated third of the vote, the success of Mr Putin’s party has given the former KGB man the cleanest grip on the Kremlin since the Brezhnev era — a near-perfect result for his brand of Russian democracy.

In a rare interview with US journalists earlier this year, he expounded on this concept, which seems to be that democracy is a bad idea if it represents a chaotic mix of opinions. “If by democracy one means the dissolution of the state, then we do not need such democracy,” he said.

“Why is democracy needed? To make people’s lives better, to make them free. I don’t think that there are people in the world who want democracy that would lead to chaos.”

But this does not mean he does not see its uses.

Obeying the rules of democracy gives the Kremlin legitimacy on the world stage in the eyes of western states. Mr Putin wants this stamp of approval, but dislikes the inconvenient and public spats democratic politics normally draws its players into.

Liliya Shevtsova, a senior associate at the Carnegie Institute, said: “The Russian ruling class is trying to legitimize its power through elections.

“Putin is interested in the legitimacy of his policies so it is important to have a majority (in parliament).”

As a result, Russia has developed a particular type of controlled democracy. The debate is controlled: the national media are largely state-owned and have been accused of huge bias towards United Russia. Even pre-election discussions between political factions were recorded in advance rather than broadcast live to give protection against unpleasant surprises.

The candidates are controlled: by arresting Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Russia’s richest man and a funder of opposition politicians, in October the Kremlin sent a strong signal to potential electoral rivals.

But this high level of control meant Russians did not see their votes as being particularly valuable.

“Why should I bother (to vote)?” asked Dasha, 25, an art student, at a party on Saturday night. Another partygoer, 25-year-old Ilya, said he would vote for Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of the misleadingly named Liberal Democratic party, “because he is a clown and Russian politics needs a clown”. Yet even Mr Zhirinovsky’s party is largely pro-Putin.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which monitored the elections, is expected to produce a critical report, citing widespread voter apathy and media bias.

An OSCE source said: “In most western countries this (indifference) indicates that people are content enough to not consider it necessary to vote. But in this case they already think the election has been decided.”

The source said the inevitability of a victory for United Russia was responsible for the apathy, rather than fears of fraud.

“Of course there will be fraud and ballot stuffing, etc, but it is the heavy media bias that people have been subjected to for years that has really set the tone.”

An analysis of national state TV channels showed an overwhelming bias towards Mr Putin and the federal government, with most stations devoting 60 per cent of their election coverage to positive news of United Russia.

Public trust in parliament is low, however, with 37 per cent of those polled by an independent agency saying it “engages in pointless discussions and arguments” with the Kremlin. Nine per cent said it did not pass any useful legislation.

The 450 MPs, half of whom are directly elected and half given seats according to the votes for their parties, are required to pass the Kremlin’s legislation. However, they have yet to significantly impede Mr Putin’s scant reform programme.

A two-thirds majority can pass changes to the constitution, and many believe the Kremlin will seek to do so to permit Mr Putin a third term after 2008.

Because of this, many analysts see these elections as deciding the length of Mr Putin’s presidency — if nothing else.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.