DOCSLIB.ORG

The Militarization of the Russian Elite Under Putin What We Know, What We Think We Know (But Don’T), and What We Need to Know

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Militarization of the Russian Elite Under Putin What We Know, What We Think We Know (But Don’T), and What We Need to Know Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 65, no. 4, 2018, 221–232 Copyright © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1075-8216 (print)/1557-783X (online) DOI: 10.1080/10758216.2017.1295812 The Militarization of the Russian Elite under Putin What We Know, What We Think We Know (but Don’t), and What We Need to Know David W. Rivera and Sharon Werning Rivera Department of Government, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY This article reviews the vast literature on Russia’s transformation into a “militocracy”—a state in which individuals with career experience in Russia’s various force structures occupy important positions throughout the polity and economy—during the reign of former KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin. We show that (1) elite militarization has been extensively utilized both to describe and explain core features of Russian foreign and domestic policy; and (2) notwithstanding its widespread usage, the militocracy framework rests on a rather thin, and in some cases flawed, body of empirical research. We close by discussing the remaining research agenda on this subject and listing several alternative theoretical frameworks to which journalists and policymakers arguably should pay equal or greater attention. In analyses of Russia since Vladimir Putin came to I was an officer for almost twenty years. And this is my own power at the start of the millennium, this master narrative milieu.… I relate to individuals from the security organs, from the Ministry of Defense, or from the special services as has been replaced by an entirely different set of themes. ’ if I were a member of this collective. —Vladimir Putin One such theme is Putin s successful campaign to remove (“Dovol’stvie voennykh vyrastet v razy” 2011) the oligarchs from high politics (via prison sentences, if necessary) and renationalize key components of the nat- In the 1990s, scholarly and journalistic analyses of Russia ural resource sector. A second and even more dominant were largely dominated by three interconnected themes: an theme revolves around the Kremlin’s steady reversal of economy in steep decline and marked by widespread pov- the democratic achievements of the late 1980s and early erty and suffering; an epidemic of corruption, organized 1990s and its re-creation of a centralized authoritarian 1 crime, and mafia-like violence; and, in the second half of regime. In place of the decentralization and “anarchy” the decade, the domination of political life by a group of of the Yeltsin years, Putin has created what Russians call capitalist tycoons collectively known as the “oligarchs.” The a “vertical of power.” A third theme that emerged in dominant framework for understanding these developments academic and media coverage of post-Yeltsin Russia, was that of a mismanaged transition from communism. especially during Putin’s second presidential term, is While opinions differed over whether Russia’s difficulties Moscow’sconfident assertiveness—even combativeness resulted from Moscow’s inconsistent and half-hearted —on the world stage, especially vis-à-vis the United implementation of the reform program recommended by States. This combativeness recently reached its apogee Western governments and international financial institutions with Russia’s de facto invasion of Ukraine over or, conversely, from the inherent flaws of the “Washington American protests and in the face of American and Consensus” of rapid marketization, privatization of industry, European sanctions. and macroeconomic stabilization, almost all agreed that A framework that claims to be able to account for all of Russia’s post-communist trajectory contained more mistakes these developments highlights the professional backgrounds and setbacks than triumphs and advances. of Russia’s rulers—in particular, their prior service in Russia’s so-called “force structures” or “power ministries,” those institutions entrusted with marshaling armed force in Address correspondence to David W. Rivera, Department of defense of the state from potential enemies, whether foreign Government, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323, USA. or domestic. According to this framework, former KGB E-mail: [email protected]. 222 RIVERA AND RIVERA lieutenant colonel Putin came into office determined to militarization has been used to explain both the Kremlin’s reestablish Moscow’s authority throughout the far-flung foreign and domestic policies and trends in Russia’seconomic Russian Federation and, more generally, to increase the development. Third, we survey the relatively small body of state’s control over a society perceived to be descending existing research that questions the validity of core compo- into chaos. In order to accomplish these objectives, the nents of the militocracy paradigm. And fourth, we summarize president needed loyal operatives who would follow orders the state of existing knowledge about militarization in Russia, and not hesitate to violate either the law or democratic discuss what we consider to be the most important components practice, if necessary. For this reason, Putin methodically of the remaining research agenda on this topic, and list several appointed scores of fellow siloviki (as such individuals are alternative theoretical frameworks to which journalists and called) to important positions throughout the polity and policymakers arguably should pay equal or greater attention. economy. The end result has been Russia’s transformation into what The Economist (“The Making of a Neo-KGB State: Russia under Putin” 2007) calls a “neo-KGB state” DESCRIPTIVE USES OF THE MILITOCRACY and the Russian sociologist Olga Kryshtanovskaya terms a PARADIGM “militocracy” (Kryshtanovskaya and White 2003).2 This article provides a comprehensive review of both this Conceptualizing Russia’s Presidential Elections and framework—which we shall call the “militocracy para- Infighting in the Kremlin digm”—and existing critiques of the conclusions reached by it. In it we show that, on the one hand, the militocracy Vladimir Putin served for over a decade as a KGB officer paradigm has dominated discussion about Putin-era Russia before becoming an assistant to Anatoly Sobchak, chairman in the public sphere to a greater extent, it seems, than has any of the Leningrad City Council, in 1990, and eventually deputy other theoretical approach. Among other purposes, the mili- mayor of St. Petersburg under Sobchak until 1996. In addition, tocracy concept has been used to conceptualize the protago- after serving in the Presidential Administration under Boris nists in Russia’s presidential elections, identify a dominant Yeltsin and prior to his appointment to the post of prime faction in Kremlin decision-making, describe the essence of minister in August 1999, Putin spent a year as head of the Putin’s personnel policies, and characterize changes in the Federal Security Service (FSB), the main successor to the composition of the business elite. In addition, Putin’sKGB KGB. Soon after his election to the presidency in 2000, ana- past and his purposeful militarization of the elite have been lysts began to use his career history to frame his rise to power. utilized to explain central aspects of Russian foreign and One of the first to do so was former major general Oleg domestic policy, such as heightened authoritarianism, conflict Kalugin, the head of the KGB’s Foreign Counterintelligence in U.S.–Russian relations, Russia’s military aggression Directorate from 1973 to 1979. In a speech delivered in against Georgia and Ukraine, and economic mismanagement. November 2000, he colorfully describes Putin’selectionto On the other hand, this article also demonstrates that, the presidency as the “triumph of the KGB” (Kalugin 2000). notwithstanding its widespread usage by journalists and “And now comes the irony of history,” he states. “The ‘armed policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic, the militocracy vanguard’ of the Communist Party, the servant of the party paradigm rests on a rather thin, and in some cases flawed, apparatus—the KGB—defeats the Communists, and moves body of systematic empirical research. In this regard, its triumphantly into the Kremlin!” This conceptual frame of the explanatory power is more asserted than demonstrated. In KGB-versus-the Communists was still in use twelve years addition, careful scrutiny of existing findings reveals that the later. Describing Putin’s first-round victory in the presidential actual proportion of Russia’s rulers drawn from the military election of 2012 and the Communist candidate’ssecond-place and security services has been much smaller than is gener- finish, Alexander Boot (2012) writes: “So yet again the KGB ally assumed. Whereas that proportion has been widely and the Party have reenacted their perennial struggles for reported in both scholarship and the media to be roughly power. Yet again the KGB won, as it has done consistently one-quarter during Putin’s first presidential term and to have since 1982, when its chairman Yuri Andropov took over the reached two-fifths by the end of his second term in office, country and paved the way for his beloved apostle Mikhail existing research actually indicates that the share of siloviki Gorbachev.” in the political elite was only around one-seventh in 2002 An even more common use of the militocracy concept and peaked at one-fifth in 2008. In sum, a large amount of has been to delineate a major faction within the country’s thinking about Putin-era Russia has been operating on the top leadership. In some analyses, the groupings competing basis of assumptions that are either unproven
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Underclass, Overclass, Ruling Class, Supernova Class1
    EIGHT Underclass, overclass, ruling class, supernova class1 Danny Dorling Introduction One man in his mid-thirties hoped that his six-figure income would grow rapidly, and admitted that his assets would be valued at nearly a million pounds. He held strong views about poverty. “There is no poverty. Now you can get money from the state. People don’t even have to go to work. You don’t have to put up with working in an unrewarding situation.” He strongly disagreed with the propositions that the gap between rich and poor was too wide and that the rich should be more highly taxed. He strongly opposed the idea of putting limits on “some people’s expensive way of living” to reduce poverty and disagreed with the statement that a lot of people entitled to claim benefits do not claim them. Finally, he strongly agreed that cuts in public services like health and education could be made without increasing the number of people in poverty and that, if there was any poverty, it was more likely to be reduced by increasing Britain’s wealth than by making incomes more equal. (Peter Townsend, describing the views of one of the new overclass of London, recorded in 1985-86; see Townsend, 1993, p 109) By 2010 one in ten of all Londoners had the wealth of the man who Peter had described some 25 years earlier as being part of a tiny elite 155 fighting poverty, inequality and social injustice (see Hills et al, 2010). The Hills inquiry into inequality revealed that one in ten Londoners now have wealth of nearly a million pounds, some 273 times the wealth of the poorest tenth of today’s Londoners.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Event Author Line-Up
    2021 Event Author Line-Up Peter Baker and Susan Glasser Peter Baker and Susan Glasser are longtime Washington journalists who have written for years about the intersection of politics and the world. They are co-authors of Kremlin Rising, and most recently New York Times bestseller and award-winning book The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III. Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times and an MSNBC political analyst. He has covered the last five presidents for The Times and The Washington Post and is the author or co-author of six books. Glasser is a staff writer for The New Yorker and author of the weekly “Letter from Biden’s Washington” as well as a global affairs analyst for CNN. She previously was the editor of POLITICO, founder of POLITICO Magazine, and editor-in- chief of Foreign Policy magazine following a long stint at The Post. Baker and Glasser live in Washington with their son and are currently at work on a book on the Trump presidency. George W. Bush George W. Bush served as the forty-third President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. He had previously served as Governor of Texas. He and his wife, Laura, live in Dallas, where they founded the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University. President Bush is the author of three #1 bestsellers: Decision Points, his presidential memoir; 41, a biography of his father, President George H. W. Bush; and Portraits of Courage, a collection of oil paintings and stories honoring the sacrifice of America’s military veterans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russia You Never Met
    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • Taliban Fragmentation FACT, FICTION, and FUTURE by Andrew Watkins
    PEACEWORKS Taliban Fragmentation FACT, FICTION, AND FUTURE By Andrew Watkins NO. 160 | MARCH 2020 Making Peace Possible NO. 160 | MARCH 2020 ABOUT THE REPORT This report examines the phenomenon of insurgent fragmentation within Afghanistan’s Tali- ban and implications for the Afghan peace process. This study, which the author undertook PEACE PROCESSES as an independent researcher supported by the Asia Center at the US Institute of Peace, is based on a survey of the academic literature on insurgency, civil war, and negotiated peace, as well as on interviews the author conducted in Afghanistan in 2019 and 2020. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andrew Watkins has worked in more than ten provinces of Afghanistan, most recently as a political affairs officer with the United Nations. He has also worked as an indepen- dent researcher, a conflict analyst and adviser to the humanitarian community, and a liaison based with Afghan security forces. Cover photo: A soldier walks among a group of alleged Taliban fighters at a National Directorate of Security facility in Faizabad in September 2019. The status of prisoners will be a critical issue in future negotiations with the Taliban. (Photo by Jim Huylebroek/New York Times) The views expressed in this report are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace. An online edition of this and related reports can be found on our website (www.usip.org), together with additional information on the subject. © 2020 by the United States Institute of Peace United States Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202.457.1700 Fax: 202.429.6063 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.usip.org Peaceworks No.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Reforms in Post-Soviet States: a Comparison
    WELFARE REFORMS IN POST-SOVIET STATES: A COMPARISON OF SOCIAL BENEFITS REFORM IN RUSSIA AND KAZAKHSTAN by ELENA MALTSEVA A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Elena Maltseva (2012) Welfare Reforms in Post-Soviet States: A Comparison of Social Benefits Reform in Russia and Kazakhstan Elena Maltseva Doctor of Philosophy Political Science University of Toronto (2012) Abstract: Concerned with the question of why governments display varying degrees of success in implementing social reforms, (judged by their ability to arrive at coherent policy outcomes), my dissertation aims to identify the most important factors responsible for the stagnation of social benefits reform in Russia, as opposed to its successful implementation in Kazakhstan. Given their comparable Soviet political and economic characteristics in the immediate aftermath of Communism’s disintegration, why did the implementation of social benefits reform succeed in Kazakhstan, but largely fail in Russia? I argue that although several political and institutional factors did, to a certain degree, influence the course of social benefits reform in these two countries, their success or failure was ultimately determined by the capacity of key state actors to frame the problem and form an effective policy coalition that could further the reform agenda despite various political and institutional obstacles and socioeconomic challenges. In the case of Kazakhstan, the successful implementation of the social benefits reform was a result of a bold and skillful endeavour by Kazakhstani authorities, who used the existing conditions to justify the reform initiative and achieve the reform’s original objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Boris Nemtsov 27 February 2015 Moscow, Russia
    Boris Nemtsov 27 February 2015 Moscow, Russia the fight against corruption, embezzlement and fraud, claiming that the whole system built by Putin was akin to a mafia. In 2009, he discovered that one of Putin’s allies, Mayor of Moscow City Yury Luzhkov, BORIS and his wife, Yelena Baturina, were engaged in fraudulent business practices. According to the results of his investigation, Baturina had become a billionaire with the help of her husband’s connections. Her real-estate devel- opment company, Inteco, had invested in the construction of dozens of housing complexes in Moscow. Other investors were keen to part- ner with Baturina because she was able to use NEMTSOV her networks to secure permission from the Moscow government to build apartment build- ings, which were the most problematic and It was nearing midnight on 27 February 2015, and the expensive construction projects for developers. stars atop the Kremlin towers shone with their charac- Nemtsov’s report revealed the success of teristic bright-red light. Boris Nemtsov and his partner, Baturina’s business empire to be related to the Anna Duritskaya, were walking along Bolshoy Moskovo- tax benefits she received directly from Moscow retsky Bridge. It was a cold night, and the view from the City government and from lucrative govern- bridge would have been breathtaking. ment tenders won by Inteco. A snowplough passed slowly by the couple, obscuring the scene and probably muffling the sound of the gunshots fired from a side stairway to the bridge. The 55-year-old Nemtsov, a well-known Russian politician, anti-corrup- tion activist and a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin, fell to the ground with four bullets in his back.
    [Show full text]
  • The Siloviki in Russian Politics
    The Siloviki in Russian Politics Andrei Soldatov and Michael Rochlitz Who holds power and makes political decisions in contemporary Russia? A brief survey of available literature in any well-stocked bookshop in the US or Europe will quickly lead one to the answer: Putin and the “siloviki” (see e.g. LeVine 2009; Soldatov and Borogan 2010; Harding 2011; Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky 2012; Lucas 2012, 2014 or Dawisha 2014). Sila in Russian means force, and the siloviki are the members of Russia’s so called “force ministries”—those state agencies that are authorized to use violence to respond to threats to national security. These armed agents are often portrayed—by journalists and scholars alike—as Russia’s true rulers. A conventional wisdom has emerged about their rise to dominance, which goes roughly as follows. After taking office in 2000, Putin reconsolidated the security services and then gradually placed his former associates from the KGB and FSB in key positions across the country (Petrov 2002; Kryshtanovskaya and White 2003, 2009). Over the years, this group managed to disable almost all competing sources of power and control. United by a common identity, a shared worldview, and a deep personal loyalty to Putin, the siloviki constitute a cohesive corporation, which has entrenched itself at the heart of Russian politics. Accountable to no one but the president himself, they are the driving force behind increasingly authoritarian policies at home (Illarionov 2009; Roxburgh 2013; Kasparov 2015), an aggressive foreign policy (Lucas 2014), and high levels of state predation and corruption (Dawisha 2014). While this interpretation contains elements of truth, we argue that it provides only a partial and sometimes misleading and exaggerated picture of the siloviki’s actual role.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Poverty: Elites, Citizens and States
    The Politics of Poverty: Elites, Citizens and States Findings from ten years of DFID-funded research on Governance and Fragile States 2001–2010 A Synthesis Paper Acknowledgements This paper was written by DFID Research and Evidence Division Staff, with help and advice from Graeme Ramshaw of IDS and from the directors and staff of the four Re­ search centres. Disclaimer: This synthesis presents some key findings of DFID-funded research and the resulting policy recommendations of the researchers: it does not necessarily reflect DFID policy. Cover Photo: Justice and Peace Commissioners, Masisi, DR Congo. © Sarah MacGregor / DFID The Politics of Poverty: Elites, Citizens, and States EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Evidence shows that in order to deliver sustainable international development we must be able to understand and work with its politics. Governance describes the way countries and societies manage their affairs politically and the way power and authority are exercised. For the poorest and most vulnerable, the difference that good, or particularly bad, governance, makes to their lives is profound: the inability of government institutions to prevent conflict, provide basic security, or basic services can have life-or-death consequences; lack of opportunity can prevent generations of poor families from lifting themselves out of poverty; and the inability to grow economically and collect taxes can keep countries trapped in a cycle of aid-dependency. Understanding governance, therefore, is central to achieving development and ending conflict. During the 1990s donors came to realise that development required better ‘governance’, and DFID recognised early on the need to work with the research community to identify ways of improving governance for better development outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • How Dangerous Is Vladimir Putin?
    A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS THE MAGAZINE OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY 220 I Street, N.E., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20002 Phone: 202-861-0791 Fax: 202-861-0790 www.international-economy.com [email protected] How Dangerous Is Vladimir Putin? estern experts have offered various explanations for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in recent years. Some sug- gest Putin has been merely reacting to NATO and EU enlarge- Wment. Others suggest the Russian leader has succumbed to a bout of irrationality, spawned by a desire to return to the “good old days” of the Soviet Union. After all, according to historian Stephen Kotkin, traditional Soviet geopolitical thinking always assumed that Western capitalism would eventually disintegrate. Princeton Professor Harold James suggests Putin’s actions are based on the rational assumption that in the wake of the global financial crisis and subsequent eurozone debt crisis, the West would lack the ability to take decisive action. This would provide Russia with a window to pursue a strategy of expanding its influence. Putin’s bet was that Western policymakers and politicians would stumble in the effort to repair their economic and financial sys- tems in the wake of the crisis. By deliberately exacerbating geo- political tensions, Putin reasoned, the preoccupied West would look even more indecisive and weak. Of course, the Russian leader’s actions have already risked a recession back home with the plummeting of the global price of oil, not to men- tion the economic bite of Western sanctions. On a scale of one to ten—with one suggesting Putin is merely a delirious fool and ten a serious threat—how dangerous is Vladimir Putin to the West? More than thirty noted observers offer their assessment on a scale of one to ten.
    [Show full text]
  • Putin's Nationalist Challenge
    Conflict Studies Research Centre Russian Series 05/20 Putin's Nationalist Challenge Dr Mark A Smith Executive Summary * Putin is increasingly dominating the political system, which is becoming more authoritarian. * Administrative reform has been implemented in order to streamline the state with limited success. Three key issues: * Could "mild authoritarianism" be replaced by a harsher form of rule? * What will happen in 2008, when the next presidential elections are scheduled, and Putin will be constitutionally obliged to step down? * Could the scenario of the "orange revolution" in Ukraine be repeated in Russia? * There is now a strong possibility that Putin may either attempt to stay in power after his second term expires in 2008, or attempt to create an interim leadership from 2008 to 2012, and then return to power. * Any post-2008 leadership is likely to be more nationalist and authoritarian. 05/20 Putin's Nationalist Challenge Dr Mark A Smith The Russian political system has been going through a process of subtle evolution since Vladimir Putin was first elected president in 2000. In 2000, major changes were made to the structure of centre-regional relations: • Putin created seven federal districts, headed by a plenipotentiary representative, appointed by the president, and solely accountable to him. The plenipotentiary representative’s main task is to ensure that federal government policy is being carried out by the regional leaderships. During the Yel’tsin period, many regional leaders had often ignored federal law, and elevated regional law above it. • The regional leaders were removed from the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council, and the president acquired the legal power to dismiss regional governors who defied federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation
    Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation J. MICHAEL WALLER "They write I'm the mafia's godfather. It was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who was the real organizer of the mafia and who set up the criminal state." -Otari Kvantrishvili, Moscow organized crime leader.l "Criminals Nave already conquered the heights of the state-with the chief of the KGB as head of a mafia group." -Former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin.2 Introduction As the United States and Russia launch a Great Crusade against organized crime, questions emerge not only about the nature of joint cooperation, but about the nature of organized crime itself. In addition to narcotics trafficking, financial fraud and racketecring, Russian organized crime poses an even greater danger: the theft and t:rafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To date, most of the discussion of organized crime based in Russia and other former Soviet republics has emphasized the need to combat conven- tional-style gangsters and high-tech terrorists. These forms of criminals are a pressing danger in and of themselves, but the problem is far more profound. Organized crime-and the rarnpant corruption that helps it flourish-presents a threat not only to the security of reforms in Russia, but to the United States as well. The need for cooperation is real. The question is, Who is there in Russia that the United States can find as an effective partner? "Superpower of Crime" One of the greatest mistakes the West can make in working with former Soviet republics to fight organized crime is to fall into the trap of mirror- imaging.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and Civil Society in the Russian Protests, December 2011
    Department of Informatics and Media Social Science – major in Media and Communication Studies Fall 2013 Master Two Years Thesis Social Media and Civil Society in the Russian Protests, December 2011 The role of social media in engagement of people in the protests and their self- identification with civil society Daria Dmitrieva Fall 2013 Supervisor: Dr. Gregory Simons Researcher at Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies 1 2 ABSTRACT The study examines the phenomenon of the December protests in Russia when thousands of citizens were involved in the protest movement after the frauds during the Parliamentary elections. There was a popular opinion in the Internet media that at that moment Russia experienced establishment of civil society, since so many people were ready to express their discontent publically for the first time in 20 years. The focus of this study is made on the analysis of the roles that social media played in the protest movement. As it could be observed at the first glance, recruiting and mobilising individuals to participation in the rallies were mainly conducted via social media. The research analyses the concept of civil society and its relevance to the protest rhetoric and investigates, whether there was a phenomenon of civil society indeed and how it was connected to individuals‘ motivation for joining the protest. The concept of civil society is discussed through the social capital, social and political trust, e- democracy and mediatisation frameworks. The study provides a comprehensive description of the events, based on mainstream and new media sources, in order to depict the nature and the development of the movement.
    [Show full text]