Running scared: Boris Yeltsin is so unpopular that running for re-election could amount to abdication.

The views expressed here are not necessarily those of ITN. WHEN he is not bawling at Euro MPs in Strasbourg or embracing Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Vladimir Zhirinovsky is pressing the flesh in dreary industrial backwaters all over Russia, preparing for next year's presidential election. But though the style is superficially Western, the content is not. No U.S. candidate could hope to win with anything resembling Zhirinovsky's extremist platform, and American office-seekers have learned that confessions of serial adultery and publicly stated interest in group sex do not play well on the campaign trail. Zhirinovsky's recent interview on his campaign boat with a female correspondent from Playboy, in which he invited her to strip and have intercourse with his son and bodyguards while he watched, has been widely reported in Russia. It caused some mirth but does not appear to have damaged his standing.Perhaps this is partly because there is still deep cynicism over whether the promised elections, for Parliament in December and for the presidency by June 1996, will in fact take place. In his State of the Nation address in February, Boris Yeltsin pledged that both elections would take place as scheduled. But that has not reassured the doubters. They point out that Russia has no tradition of orderly transfers of power between political opponents. And with the president's rating, in a February poll on voting intentions, at an all-time low of 3 per cent, submitting himself for re-election could be the equivalent of abdication. Cynics point to a recent statement by Yeltsin's ally Vladimir Shumeiko, chairman of the upper chamber of the Parliament: ``What Russia needs is not elections but stability.'' Speculation continues that the men around Yeltsin are looking for a suitable moment in Russia's continuing crisis to declare the need for emergency measures and the postponement of elections.If elections are held, one important question must be answered before any assessment of possible winners and losers can begin: Will the vote be fair? In an interview with French television, Grigory Yavlinsky, who led in the opinion poll quoted above with 14 per cent, said the result of a presidential election was likely to be affected by fraud. He expressed the hope that vote rigging would not be used to propel Zhirinovsky into power. This is not just scare-mongering. There is compelling evidence that fraud played a critical part in the constitutional referendum held simultaneously with the parliamentary elections in December 1993, three months after Yeltsin terminated the former Supreme Soviet with tanks. The impact of fraud on the parliamentary elections is still difficult to decipher, not least because detailed constituency results have only recently been published. However, it is reasonably clear that the results of the vital referendum, which Yeltsin had to win in order to legitimize the new political system he was determined to introduce, were falsified. For the referendum to be valid more than 50 per cent of the electorate had to take part, and after some confusion on polling day the authorities duly announced that 51 per cent of eligible voters had done so, with 58 per cent of them supporting Yeltsin's new constitution.Since then the pro-reform newspaper Izvestia has reported that, in fact, only 46 per cent of eligible voters turned out. Prosecutors in a number of areas have accused local officials of fraud. After the referendum the supervisor of one Moscow polling station committed suicide, saying in a final letter that he had ``grossly deceived the people.'' Yet the official who supervised the election nationwide, Nikolai Ryabov, is due to organize the next one.So a guess at the presidential winner is not something to bet the family savings on. Conventional politics would suggest starting with the man leading in the polls, Grigory Yavlinsky. Youthful and telegenic, he is a respected economist who drew up a five-hundred-day recovery plan for Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. It was never implemented, and Yavlinsky has since done his best to remain in the public eye without getting tarred by the dirty brushes that have smeared many of his potential opponents.He condemned the storming of the White House while declining to support those inside it. He avoided association with Yegor Gaidar's ham-fisted attempts at economic reform, and he advised President Yeltsin not to use force against the Chechens. He is widely liked and respected among intelligent Russians, not least by presidential advisor Sergei Karaganov, who when I asked him to assess Yavlinsky's chances nonetheless replied, ``Not just zero, less than zero!'' The trouble, it seems, is that Yavlinsky has no firm base of support in the army, the security services, or anywhere else where power really lies. The G-Men SUPPORT for Mikhail Gorbachev, who is visibly toying with a return to politics, stood at zero in the February poll. Another possible candidate who is widely seen as having no chance at all is Yegor Gaidar. He had only 2 per cent in the poll and, just as important, an army of enemies who will do almost anything to stop him.One of those is the ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky, who continues to command solid backing. He had 6 per cent in the poll, but this may underestimate his appeal, since respondents are probably reluctant to admit their extremist preference. Loved, in spite of his escapades, by Russia's army of bigoted babushkas (a powerful force in Russian public opinion) and by taxi drivers everywhere, he can be counted on to get his vote out and to gain strength as polling day approaches.If Russia's political establishment has its way, Zhirinovsky will finish as an also-ran, perhaps getting to the second round of the planned French-style election but destined to be defeated by a more moderate candidate. He is seen as a useful bogeyman for frightening the West into continued support for the present ramshackle political structure but far too dangerous, even in Russia, to be president.So what result do Russia's power brokers want? Those closest to Yeltsin are looking at their increasingly decrepit boss with mounting feelings of insecurity. If his political grip weakens further, or his sorely tested health fails, they could find themselves swept out of power and even facing trial. Signs are growing that some members of this elite would like Yeltsin to step aside gracefully, anointing a viable successor who would then carry their banner into the elections.One much discussed scenario involves President Yeltsin stepping down to become a life member of Parliament's upper chamber, the Federation Council, a move that would provide him with legal immunity from future prosecution. His successor under the constitution would be Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who would then run for election on a ticket of dependable continuity.There are only two problems with this scenario. The first is that Chernomyrdin lacks both charisma and electoral appeal. The second is that Yeltsin shows no sign of wanting to go. In spite of controversy over his sometimes incoherent public appearances and the open disrespect he now encounters from some of his underlings, the president seems determined to fight on. He is apparently counting on the lack of a viable alternative to bring back support to his camp, and his proven toughness in a crisis means that displacing him will be a formidable task.The central question is the extent to which Russia's power elite can shape an election result to their liking. Today it is openly admitted that the broadcast of a violently anti- Zhirinovsky documentary on the eve of the last parliamentary elections was the result of a high-level order designed to stem the rising tide of support for him. In fact the program provided the extremist leader with valuable publicity and probably boosted his vote.The authorities have learned since then and will be more subtle next time. They will have a powerful influence on how the electoral game is played. But in a country as varied as the new Russia, where freedom of speech has taken hold, a presidential election is likely to remain a dangerously unpredictable affair. For that reason it may in the end prove, in spite of all the promises, an unattractive option for those currently holding power.