Kremlin spokesmen are no amateurs when it comes to spin-doctoring. The most celebrated example in recent times was an announcement in the summer of 1996 that President Yeltsin was ill with a sore throat. As usual, there was some truth in the statement. The President was indeed ill.

There was also a strong element of wishful thinking. The President may very well have had a sore throat too, but he had also suffered a severe heart attack. Yesterday's statement from the centre of Russia's administration that a "peaceful revolution" had taken place should be seen in the same light.

The election was, in the main, peaceful. But the constituency of Chechnya failed to conduct a poll because it was involved in a full-scale war.

The use of the term "revolution" was something of an overstatement too. A major change has indeed taken place, but as the later results trickled in it became clear that early predictions of a huge success for democratic parties supporting President Boris Yeltsin and the Prime Minister, Mr Vladimir Putin, were falling short of the mark.

With close to 90 per cent of votes counted, the party list system, by which half of the 450 members of the Duma are elected, gave the pro-government blocs just over 38 per cent, including the 6 per cent gained by the most disgusting of the government's supporters, the racist buffoon Mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

On the other hand, the opposition parties gained 42 per cent of the vote, with the Communists, on 24.22, increasing their following by two percentage points on the last Duma elections in 1995. Taking these figures into account, the "peaceful revolution" proclaimed by the Kremlin's administrator, Mr Igor Shaburasulov, seems a definite overstatement.

The stranglehold the Communists had on the last Duma has, however, undoubtedly been broken. But that does not mean that the groups supporting Mr Yeltsin and Mr Putin will have an easy ride.

Even if the percentages achieved in the party list section of the vote were replicated in actual seats, there would be frequent occasions when the Communists, the main non-communist opposition party, Fatherland-All Russia (OVR), and the liberal pro-western Yabloko bloc of Mr Grigory Yavlinsky might combine to defeat the government.

But the vote did not end with the party list section. In single-seat constituencies throughout Russia another less predictable election has been taking place for 424 seats (the deputy for Chechnya to be elected at a date to be announced).

With local Independents, mafia hoods, dodgy businessmen and maverick politicians coming through in many of these areas, the true balance of seats will not be known until the new Duma has met and voted several times.

There have, however, been identifiable winners and losers. In the first place several members of Mr Yeltsin's entourage, especially those who won seats and gained parliamentary immunity, will feel safer from criminal prosecution for corruption and embezzlement, which might have ensued had the opposition won a large majority.

Secondly, Mr Putin's chances of becoming president have been greatly enhanced. But there could be many a banana skin on the way between now and the presidential elections in June.

The most surprising winner of all was Mr Sergei Kiriyenko, whose Union of Rightist Forces made it into the Duma against all the odds. Some sleight of hand had to be used to achieve this, mainly the hiding of two of Russia's most hated politicians, Mr Anatoly Chubais and Mr Yegor Gaidar, down in the body of the list, and the main TV channels' failure to mention their existence.

In his short term as prime minister Mr Kiriyenko presided over the meltdown of Russia's economy on August 17th, 1998. Mr Chubais supported a bizarre "loans for shares" scheme which hastened the collapse.

Under this operation, which was little less than a con trick, Russian plutocrats lent money to the state. In return they got shares in state enterprises and their money back as well.

All the same, an elated Mr Kiriyenko put a better face on things after his surprise success. He did not use the word "revolution". But his description of his party's achievement of less than 9 per cent of the vote as an "enormous victory" was, without doubt, an exaggeration. His support had come from people in Russia who wanted to live as people do in Western Europe, he said.

Mr Leonid Radzikovsky, the political analyst of the liberal daily, Segodnya, saw things differently. The relative success of Mr Kiriyenko's Union of Rightist Forces was due, he said, to the support of the state.

The state and local administrations, the first and second TV channels and Mr Putin went a very long way to bring Mr Kiriyenko to the prominence he now enjoys. "The liberal goals proclaimed by the Union of Rightist Forces ran contrary to the methods used to achieve them," Mr Radzikovsky concluded.

AS FOR Unity, the largest pro-Kremlin party, led by Mr Sergei Shoigu, its main policy plank was simply that it supported the Prime Minister. Mr Shoigu may have provided most of the votes following his many appearances on TV from the Chechen front, but Mr Kiriyenko will provide the economic ideology in the Putin camp.

Moscow's mayor, Mr Yuri Luzhkov, was disappointed with the performance of the FatherlandAll Russia group (OVR), which he jointly heads with Mr Yevgeny Primakov. "I can't say that it was a success. I can't say it was a failure. It was just a middling result," he said.

Mr Primakov sounded a warning, however, by saying that the party would vote in the Duma on an issue-by-issue basis indicating that, occasionally at least, it would side with the Communists.

As for the Communists themselves, none of the TV stations and few of the political analysts paid much attention to their performance or their views. The only other political entity to be so ignored and isolated in the post-election analyses was President Yeltsin. His time is running out.