First his tanks pound parliament; then he turns on the opposition, banning parties, closing newspaper, suspendind the Constitutional Court. Boris Yeltsin says he is building democracy in Russia, clearing the way for a free and fair election on December 12th, but onlookers may be forgiven for wondering whether this poll is to be much freer or fairer than those of old. If reform is to continue, a victory for the reformers in the election will not be enough. It must be a victory that genuinely reflects the will of the people, and one that cannot plausibly be challenged by the opposition as a fraud.

Fortunately, appearances deceive, in at least three ways. First, the opposition has not been suppressed. True, six organisations are now banned outright, including one political party. Their removal from the scene is not, however, a terrible affront to democracy. All six had been under investigation for possible crimes involving incitment to armed rebellion, and on the face of it they may well have a criminal case to answer. Five of the organisations were groups of retired or reserve army officers; the sixth, the Communist Workers' Party, specialised in agitprop activities.

Until October 19th, four other groups had also been suspended. Since their suspension was not turned into a formal ban, they are now campaigning as though they are once more fully legal-though this remains unclear. If these four organisations are indeed free to take part in the election, the biggest single concern about fairness will have been removed. One of them, after all, is the Communist Party, which, with 600.000 members, is the largest party in Russia. Another is the People's Party of Free Russia, led by Alexander Rutskoj, the man who set himself up as president in opposition to Mr Yeltsin and urged his supporters to take over Moscow. This behaviour was irresponsible in the extreme, but the most effective punishment for it would be to see them trounced at the polls.

Forget the past

The second reason for feeling reassured is that the press is still pretty free. Of the 15 publications that have been closed down, 12 are small news-sheets, accused either of failing to register as newspapers or of breaking the law in some other way. One newspaper, Den, an ultra-nationalist publication with fascist leanings, has published articles that would have got it into trouble in many democracies. The two others, Pravda and Sovetskaja Rossia, have been told they can start again if they change their names and editors.

More influential than the press will be television, to which access promises to be reasonably free. All registered parties will be allowed to make campaign broadcasts, though it is not clear how long they will be. Nor is it clear whether television news will be biased towards one party or another. During the occupation and storming of parliament earlier this month, the main evening news programme openly declared itself to favour "the elected president of Russia". That programme, however, now has new competition: last week another channel began broadcasting, vowing strict independence.

The third reason for optimism is that the electoral rules seem fair. The man in charge of the election, Nikolai Ryabov, is not a Yeltsin supporter. Far from it: he used to be an assistant to Ruslan Khasbulatov, one of Mr Yeltsin's main opponents. That hardly guarantees fairness-Mr Ryabov is no democrat-but it suggests the contest will not be rigged by the reformers. Certainly, the restrictions upon individuals who want to stand are not severe. Members of banned organisations will be free to contest the election unless they are in a jail, a disqualification that effects only one ex-deputy, Mr Khasbulatov. The signs are that preventing him from standing is not depriving many Russians of voting for a candidate they would like to elect.

The restrictions on Pravda and Sovetskaja Rossia therefore represent the main blemish on the campaign. They could be lifted without fear of subversion or sedition. The main offence of these newspapers is to have opposed Mr Yeltsin, not to have undermined state security.

With those restrictions lifted, Russia's election would look quite respectable. It will not be a model of democratic purity. The chances are that some intimidation will take place, some ballot boxes will go unattended, some parties will gain unfair advantages. But that, unfortunately, is true in plenty of countries with a longer democratic tradition than Russia.

Russians' relative unfamiliarity with free elections, and their long familiarity with unfree ones, means that many of them will be cynical about the results. So it is all the more important that the campaign and the conduct of the polling should be as open and unimpeded as possible. But no one should assume that Russians and democracy do not mix. The referendum held in April-in haste, and in far from ideal conditions-passed off successfully: turnout was respectable (64%) and most charges of fraud remained unsubstantiated. It may take a while before Russia reaches Scandinavian norms of democratic correctness, but the evidence suggests thet Russians are considerably more mature than their leaders-which is why they should be allowed to vote in as free a manner as possible.