Almost 78% of Russian voters upheld protected changes that could keep President Vladimir Putin in power until 2036, political decision authorities state.
With all the polling forms tallied, 77.9% decided in favor of the change bundle and 21.3% against, the constituent commission said.
The changes will reset Mr Putin’s term cutoff points to focus in 2024, permitting him to serve two increasingly six-year terms.
Restriction figures censured the vote, saying he was intending to be “president forever”, a case Mr Putin denies.
The Kremlin hailed the vote as a “triumph” and Mr Putin expressed gratitude toward Russians for their “backing and trust”, including that they were “improving the political framework, firming up social ensures, reinforcing sway and regional uprightness”.
Be that as it may, there was no autonomous investigation of the seven-day vote, and duplicates of the new constitution showed up in bookshops during the week.
By spreading out the vote, in light of the coronavirus disease hazard, the specialists made any observing of it progressively troublesome.
Media captionWill Putin rule Russia until the end of time? A glance at his 20 years in power
Top Kremlin pundit Alexei Navalny portrayed the outcomes as a “major falsehood” which didn’t reflect genuine popular supposition in the nation.
Mr Putin is as of now the longest-serving pioneer in present day Russian history since Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin. A US state division representative said it was grieved by “reports of voter intimidation, pressure on adversaries of the revisions and limitations of autonomous eyewitnesses of the vote”, AFP announced.
‘Only a PR work out’
Golos, an autonomous Russian political decision observing gathering, has censured the vote, claiming there were numerous infringement of popular government.
Its reactions include: adversaries were banished from crusading in the media; remote electronic democratic was sorted out on an unlawful premise; political decision screens were delegated by the Civic Chamber – an administration body.
Golos depicts it as “only a PR practice from the very beginning” and says “there was no legitimate requirement for it”. The vote “will stand out forever as an assault on the sway of the individuals”.