CEU eTD Collection PROFESSIONALIZATION OFPOLITICALCAMPAIGNS:A In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of of Arts of Master for degree the requirements of the fulfillment In partial CASE STUDY OF RUSSIAN PARTIES IN THE OFRUSSIANPARTIES CASE STUDY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 2007 ELECTIONS PARLIAMENTARY Supervisor: Professor ZsoltEnyedi Department of Political Science Political of Department Central European University Central European By Vadim Nigmatov Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Submitted to Submitted 2009 CEU eTD Collection capital/administrative resources impacts the level of campaign professionalization by parties. thelevel impacts professionalization of campaign resources capital/administrative administrative high of availability the theory, the by proposed variables besides context, of professionalization campaigning inof Russian parties’ butonly some cases.In Russian the level the may explain resource andfinancial structure internal asideology, parties of factors professionalization ofcampaigningisfully not developed. Iarguethatinternal Furthermore, the Nevertheless, parties. on state the of impact high the with democracy’ ‘managed andtheparty system party competition thelimited despite a campaigning of professionalized context. in Russian campaigns political professional to adaptation parties’ of level the predetermine campaigning theory by of professionalized proposed party-centered financial resource the and structure internal of as ideology, parties factors internal the whether study research the Also democracy’. a ‘managed of context specific in the function which parties Russian global the by of campaigning alsotechniques professionalized the used are extensively Duma of RussianFederationthe during elections the of 2007. By soitdoing inquires whether The argumentof is paperthis thatpolitical in parties Russia usesglobal of techniques The research analyzes professionalization of political campaigns of parties in the State in the parties of campaigns political of professionalization analyzes research The ABSTRACT CEU eTD Collection References:...... 59 ...... 55 Conclusion Chapter 3 Testing Party-Centered Theory...... 35 Russian Federation elections in 2007...... 20 Chapter 2: Measuring the professionalization of parties campaigns in the State Duma of Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework...... 7 Introduction...... 1 i ABSTRACT...... of Table Content 3.5 Alternative variable: administrative capital and resources...... 52 3.4 Discussion of the findings...... 49 3.3 Ideology of parties...... 47 3.2 Internal ...... 38 Structure of Parties 3.1 ...... 35 Level of financial resources 2.2 Results of campaign professionalization measurement...... 27 2.1 CAMPROF index for measuring professionalization of campaigns...... 20 1.3 Parties and campaigns in post-communist countries and Russia...... 17 1.2 Theories of professionalized ...... 9 campaigning 1.1 Conceptualizing professional ...... 7 political campaigns 3.2.2 Centralized versus decentralized structure of decision-making process in Russian parties.39 processinRussian versusdecentralizedstructuredecision-making of 3.2.2 Centralized 3.2.1 Institutional environment for parties’ ...... 38 organization in Russia ii CEU eTD Collection techniques and marketingFarrell techniques 2006).The and professionalization (see also of techniques media, particularly TV (so called ‘mediatization’ of campaign), as well as use of opinion polls of requirements format presumed tothe campaign the of adaption the organization, campaign from marketingconsultants agencies,mediaandadvertising with industries aim the of and experts of technical arerecruitment campaigns political of of professionalization features Kavanaghinstance,many orcampaign For dimensions according to techniques. (1995) the Kavanagh includes professionalization and Nossitercampaign 1996).Theterm political of – professionalization (Holtz-Bacha 2002 and 2004; Farrel 1996; Kavanagh 1995 Blumler, Rommele 2001and2009). partiesthe themselves (Farrel and Webb2000,Mancini and1996, Gibson Swanson and impact campaigns professional of applications the parties, political of life the of component central arethe campaigns As election the political parties. particularly institutions, political other for implications significant have campaigns modern is that science political the for is changes What in broad of important more political realms. and society consequences even and asmodernization,in processes technological changes developments political cultures. last whichbroadand over the decade byacombination of complicated are explained changing rapidly been have campaigns election of technologies and design manner, The 1). anduniting voters candidates in displays civicof piety and rituals of national (1996; renewal” define it“symbolically, campaigns legitimate democratic government and political leaders, Swanson and Mancini As choices. free make to and programs their proposing politicians The evolution modernof campaign istechniques usually defined byone single concept only studying in The modern campaignsnotas the political worth conducting trends are evaluate to voters allow They elections. in the role vital a play campaigns Political Introduction 1 CEU eTD Collection the variety of Russian parties’ professional campaigning, and if not what can beif and notadditional an campaigning, professional variety the Russian parties’ of and level can the explain campaigning theory of professionalized whether party-centered the The second is inRussia. of research for the question campaigns of professionalization factors explanatory studies which analyze of is lack there Nevertheless, resources. financial internal party variables such ideology,as: party goal,internal and structure availability of country country to from and party to inparty one single country and can be explained by 1995 and others) claim thethat level of professionalization of political vary campaigning from (Mancini and Swanson 1996,Farrel Webb Norrisand 2000, Kavanagh 1995, Scammel Gibson (2001),andand Rommele which is basedon fundamentalother in works fieldthis professionalized. are inRussia parties of campaigns political what extent to empirically measure ‘managed democracy’. of context campaigning arealsoextensively by function used Russian inparties which the specific of professionalized global techniques the iswhether research the of question The first empirical studies of adaptation the of professional political bypartiescampaigns in Russia. in systematic limited is it is rich, characteristics its and campaigns political professional in background field the whileNevertheless, theoretical studies the of of of evolution 2002,Hale 2007). 2009,Plasser andPlasser professional(Hutcheson campaigning aswell of ‘global’ party techniques parties,system, the‘managed’ despite extensively developed Mair, Holtz-Bacha, Kavanagh, Plasser, Negrine and many others. parties was intensively of studiedrole external and by organization manyinternal parties’ to scholars:implications its and campaigns Swansonpolitical and Mancini, Farrel, Webb, Katz, The party-centered theory of professionalized political campaigning elaborated by elaborated political campaigning ofprofessionalized theory The party-centered on RussianThe Russian claimthat of campaigning parties political studies andstudies Therefore, the first aim of the present research is to 2 CEU eTD Collection individuals who demonstrably support the party’s candidates” (Kitschelt et al.46-9). candidates” (Kitschelt party’s the et 1999, individualssupport whodemonstrably those to symbolic advantages or material selective of direct provision the facilitating of assets by parties. professionalization campaign of level low the impact may resources capital/administrative administrative of campaign professionalization by The some parties. research argues high thatavailability of by impact variable level the additional proposed variables besides theory, the Russian context, professionalization party-centeredthat theory of campaigningmayprofessionalized explain level the of of the Russianis research, the of argument main the and argument, parties’second The 2009). Hutcheson e.g. (see, campaigning but onlyprofessionalization fullycampaigning isnot of developed assome previous studies argued to a certainthe Nevertheless, parties. on state the of impact extent.high the with democracy’ ‘managed In the andtheparty system party competition thelimited despite a campaigning of professionalized (Gel’man 2008, Hale 2007). organization and rolein playspolitics party important state the where ‘managed democracy’, of question in Russian the is context the under campaigning professionalization the of democratic On hand, (Hutcheson countries 2009, Plasser 2002). and other Plasser the some argue that Russian use intheircampaignsparties thesameprofessional techniques asother variables conform level the to professionalization of of their campaigning. ideology, internal structure and financial resources of the Russian parties and to test if these analyze isto research present of the aim second the Therefore, variable. alternative or The administrative capital was first defined by Kitschelt as “a sort of capital as a stock as a capital of “asort as by Kitschelt defined first was capital The administrative The argumentof is paperthis thatpolitical in parties Russia usesglobal of techniques scholars some hand one the on that puzzle the on based are questions research The 3 CEU eTD Collection frame of the research is year 2007 when the last Russian Duma elections took place. took Russianlast elections research is year2007when frame Duma the the of time The Parliament. Russian in the elections previous in all seats won party the but elections Also,Party Yabloko wasincludedinto thepass research. Yabloko didthresholdthe not inlast passed in thethresholds Duma lastthe elections State tothe Federation in of Russian 2007. that only Russia. inRussiaandthe parties aretheparties These biggest (LDPR) andJust Russia of Party Liberal-Democratic (CPRF), Federation Russian of Party Communist (UR), Russia United five parties: analyze research will The Federation elections. Russian Duma of in of parties Russia. peculiarities fieldthe understand of on inRussia certain andhelp parties studies to organizational to contribute will campaigning political of professionalization of level the impact may which parties of variables internal of analysis The insight. empirical with case new introducing Russian inparties elections 2007 would enlarge fieldthe of communicationpolitical studies the by professionalization campaigns political of study empirical The studies. communication campaigning. level can low professionalized of explain the resources capital/administrative thatadditional variable – administrative cases. shows Russia caseof The United in only holds certain the true that theory theory by show party-centered the variables proposed level the of campaigning. their professionalized Thefindings internal of analysis of the party 2007 applied parties verylimited professional in extent.However, campaigning tothe vary 337). (2009, process” resources toinfluencethe electoral state offices or abuse of by as “theuseandsometimes weredefined Hutcheson resources The administrative The units of analysis of the research are parties and their political campaigns in the State The present research is aimed at contributing both to fields of party studies and political in thatparties in findingsThe Duma which show participated lastelections research the 4 CEU eTD Collection what extent parties allow their members and regional branches to take active part in choosing part active take to branches regional and members their allow parties extent what to analyze will research the Particularly, be made. to are decisions of avariety how indicate by analyzing the parties’is measured Thisvariable parties. of versus organization decentralized structure hierarchical rules of the decision-making with organization internal centralized in the interested is research The of parties. structure process, expenditures campaign iselection variable on 2007. Thesecond internal organization and i.e. the parties’ rulesby the which analysismeasured is variable This parties. of resource financial the is variable first The campaigning. of the overall party income in 2007. with variety campaigning the between parties. Also the research index thelevelin willshow of professionalization Russian 2.This Chapter of context looks at (Gibson andRommele tothe 2009).The and CAMPROFindexwillbe presented adapted the party and then scores from all dimensions are combined in one index with the maximum score of 30 opinion polling andopposition research. Each isdimension measuredby scale from the 0 to3 databases, computerized campaigning, PR/media continuous consultants, headquarters, campaigning outside newsletter, email-subscription system, communication internal/intranet include: use of telemarketing as campaigning tool, useofmaildirect campaigningas tool, Farrel Webb 2000,Holtz-Bacha and 2004, Plasser and 2002).These Plasser dimensions many studies professional of campaigning (Swanson ManciniKavanagh and 1995, 1996, elements of by campaigning. Theseactivitiesprofessional andinitiatives were elaborated be to areconsidered which initiatives and key based on party activities whichare dimensions by CAMPROFindex the by proposed Gibson andRommele includes (2001).The index 10 campaigning byRussian Theparties. professionalization campaigningof political ismeasured The independent variables are based on the party-centered theory of professionalized theory of party-centered the on variables are based independent The The research applies qualitative methods. The dependent variable isvariable professional Thedependent methods. qualitative applies The research 5 CEU eTD Collection capital/administrative resources. capital/administrative –administrative variable of an additional analysis bewith the will concludes variablesindependent from index. canexplain the results chapter CAMPROF derived the The if willdiscuss the table. Chapter The in result summarized the the andpresent variables will by campaigning analyzeeachof independentthe Chapter The thirdparties. scored professionalized the of will dimension study each in2007.This Chapter Federation elections Duma professionalizationthe in by parties thepolitical State of campaigns of Russian the in research will ontheCAMPROFindex details elaborate itandfor apply measuring the of in Thesecondchapter campaigning. of theory professionalized party-centered particularly theories, approaches hypotheses in and professionalization political of campaigns, studying Chapter research question and isone main presentingmain argument. theoretical background classify them as a dichotomous variable with left-wing ideology or right-wing ideology. and of study parties the ideology the of the makeof analysis will research The ideology. party leaders and influencing making the decision The process. thirdvariable isparty The thesis contains introduction, three chapters and conclusion. The introduction sets introduction The conclusion. and chapters three introduction, contains thesis The 6 CEU eTD Collection prism of organizational dynamics and communications strategy. Here he proposes he strategy.certain Here and proposes prism dynamics communications organizational of develops hisconceptualization byanalyzing through campaign of the evolution processes Farrel (2006) and Later, thematic. technical,main resources of three development: areas Farrell 2006). campaign), as aswell andmarketinguse of opinion polls techniques techniques (see also of ofmedia, called ‘mediatization’ presumedformatrequirements the particularly TV (so advertising industries with aimof the campaign organization, adaption the of campaign the to media and agencies, marketing from and consultants experts of technical are recruitment members andvolunteers thus changing campaignorganization the and strategies. campaigns relymore consultants, upon marketresearch and experts paid rather workers than (1988) used term the inprofessionalization modernclaiming that in parties election 1996; Kavanagh 1995; Blumler, Kavanagh and Nossiter1996).For instance, Panebianco Farrel 2004; (Holtz-Bacha in concept–professionalization single beone conceptualized 1.1 Conceptualizing professional political campaigns studies. communication political is research presentwhich developedbased ontheories in fieldsof and the party studies the for important not and behavior voting on campaigns modern of effects in the interested studies, political studiescommunication andvoting behavioris studies. last The mainly last two decades. The study of campaigns coincides with three fields of political science: party Farrel Farrel conceptualizing professionalization (1996), political campaigns,of emphasizes KavanaghAccording to (1995) the features of professionalization of political campaigns fact currentin scholars can Most used the techniques agree on that political campaigns The study of campaigns and their effects became a significant field of research in the Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework Theoretical 1: Chapter 7 CEU eTD Collection a broad and multifaceted phenomenon, and may have different features in different countries in different features different have may and phenomenon, multifaceted and a broad (Farrel 1996, Holtz-Bacha 2004,Kavanagh 1995 and others). communication in political scholars by proposed features aforementioned different embracing ‘professionalization’ by singleterm be one could described modern campaign political dimensions. many include would campaigns political andfeatures of analysis many separately defined singleand with term without conceptualized logic102). If followmodernin theproposed bewe trends political campaigning would left increased and the management useof or centralization the experts of (2002, campaign’ the phrasesof such specialization tasks, moreas terms accurate and forand ‘more specific argue campaign inpolitical trends modern of for conceptualization any term propose alternative not do Negrine and Lilleker moment, same the At professionalization. of term defined clearly of Thisindividual maylevel andNegrine 2002). argument be(Lilleker plausible dueto lackthe also local the but on level, and centralized not only affecton campaigns the that processes 101). They is(2002, there multilayered inclaim needthat for toexplain order approach the years” in recent have changed of communication nature the and campaign political the how explain oftenhindersattempts to use of andas professionalization terms such professionalism “the – misleading is years inrecent campaign inpolitical developments conceptualizing for campaigns. in political of consultants andexternal party; usage leader and between hierarchical placement’; relationships at‘product aimed orientations and interactive regular marketing headquarters; opinion focus groups websites; plus poll campaign of use campaigning; permanent campaigns: political current of feature As a rich amountof studies of political points campaigns out,professional is campaigns in used of techniques features or presentresearch the purpose the for Nevertheless, professionalization term the of use that claim Negrine and Lilleker moment, same the At 8 CEU eTD Collection and hypotheses in fieldthe trying toexplain modern campaigns. factors driven campaignresearch But the studiesexplanatory that 2004). Farrel 1996, Kavanagh 1995, Holtz-Bacha techniques are notstudyingdedicated to evolution andchanges in (Esser campaigns political and Pfetsch 2004, so rich. Nevertheless, field drive donein amountof factors is this that huge work changes.The explanatory there are severalscholars within the field is changes in political campaigns techniques, strategies and theories of interest primary The communication. political of field in the issues studied most the 1.2 Theories of professionalized campaigning in discussed indetail nextchapter: the areas of party activity that show the professionalizationpolitical four categorize campaigns.Gibson andRommele (2009) activities into thesekey of political campaigns of measuring for professionalization tool asamethodological by research be present the used which will be will activities key These campaign. asprofessional can beassociated that making campaign Gibson and Rommele (2001)which includes ten key party initiatives and activities in and 2002,Johnson Plasser 2009,Sussman 2005). (Plasser inallcountries features similar of aset with phenomenon aworldwide as considered be may campaigns political show that studies at same But the time those 2002). and Plasser (Plasser context local on depending countries different in differences certain have campaigns (Stromback 2007).Nevertheless, arestudies there showingprofessionalization that of political centralization particularlyof power in person the of leaderthe 268). (2009, thefinally, and, engagement; individualized and interactive more a towards electorate restructuring andoriented mode; in continuous a reorientation relationships the with the overall style of campaigning toamore capital-intensive,attack- aggressive or intensification existing polls,focus methods(opinion of ingroups); a shiftthe of power relations within the party with an increasing The evolution of current trends and techniques used in political campaigns was one of one was incampaigns political used techniques and currenttrends The evolution of by professional campaignsproposed of research relieson The definition the present the adoption of new tools and tactics (high-tech computerized) and and new (high-tech tactics adoption the and tools of 9 CEU eTD Collection parties differ in Western Europe in greatly organization origin,from and environment parties sense, this In countries. even or continents in different development party of differences of shortage cases national in studies and cross (Farrel theory’ ‘Americanization 2006). the the dueto be generalized cannot theory ‘Americanization’ on based trends comparative the bringing significant in changes (Farrel politics party 2002, Plasser and 2002).Second, Plasser 2006)oritprofessionalization befulllarge-scale of adoption campaign can political (Farrel selective or can beeither partial Farrel It (see 2006). parties and campaigns for implications scaledifferent with practices canbeondifferent States First, arescholarsadaptation there political claimingthat of campaigntechniques from United limitations. somehas the side theory from other the perspective, incomparative processes others). (see FarrellSwanson and Mancini Negrine1996, Papathanassopoulos and 1996, 1996 and criticizing theory the of number researches supporting or campaign of comparative political a stimulated This theory States. in born United are mediatization) and professionalization in as innovations the world features campaigns political (including around used such in The cuesfrom media United take 4). the logictheir States’ (1996, isthatall counterparts worldthe more isbecoming as andmore candidates,political Americanized andnews parties, Mancini Swanson and1996). argument Mancini’s is that‘campaigning in democracies around campaigns were in born andUnited States thenapplied all worldover the and (Swanson political of features modern/professional all that claiming by campaigns in political explaininnovations theory to ‘Americanization’ tries In short, theory. ‘Americanization’ the The next limitation in the theory is that it does not take into consideration fundamental consideration into take not does it that is theory the in limitation next The examine in developments helpscampaigning From to the thetheory the side one was techniques campaign political of evolution explain to aimed which theory first The 10 , just contributing general trends in trends general contributing just CEU eTD Collection explanatory variable is the technological development of media system which results in results which system media of development technological the is variable explanatory cultures to impact of electoral social and changes. institutional vary Thefrom explanatory factors inchanges political system and system of party competition. The most importantcampaign and spectators processes to consumers (Swansonand Mancini 1996, 14-17). in participants from active of changingrole citizens feature, with spectators’ to citizenship ‘from so-called the 5) and campaign; election never-ending of emergence and interest media influencing the parties and political in resulted campaigns adaptation of to campaigns political communications highly independentwith media and power having its viewown and marketingreliance likeof structures ontools; techniques opinion 4)theautonomous activists from parties losing to traditional with relationships grassroots citizens with due of detachment 3) the byparty officials; taking whichwerepreviously fulfilled functions increasing and technical role‘scientificization’ with experts voters of party; 2) politics of between relationships ideological traditional the andreplace leaders party role of growing shows which politics of personalization 1) campaigns: political modernized of elements major five orelements of political They majorfeatures conceptualize current campaigns. proposed analyze whotried and were theto first Farrell 1996).Swanson and Mancini (1996) campaigns is modernization the theory by proposed Swanson and Mancini (1996, seealso campaigns. political infurther studies for development of point servedasastarting theory’ ‘Americanization and level of adaptation ‘American’ innovations.of Allin all, its despite limitations level history, resultingin evolution campaigns andinstitutions culture political of different of difference of interms aregreat there Furthermore, or democracies. other in States United The theory explains aforementioned trends in political campaigns as the result of broad of result the as campaigns in political trends aforementioned explains theory The for inpolitical ofcurrenttrends studies comparative broad Another theory proposed 11 CEU eTD Collection campaign evolution (see Norris 2004,Farrel 2006). as some or professionalized, scholars level‘modern’ prefer, and‘post-modern’ reached of are campaigns political what extent to show can features Allthese by parties. Russian which willbe in formeasuringused this research professionalization campaignsof political which were thencomprised by Gibson andin Rommele (2009) one methodological set and marketing agenciesandmedia; usage campaigning’;opinion ‘permanentof polls; and others, from consultants and experts external of involvement the as: such campaigns political ofmodern features different define theories aforementioned the isresearch that present for the isWhat important modernization. specialization or definedasprofessionalization, campaigns campaigns asvariable. the dependent set abasisfor They analyzingtrends inpolitical current research. of presentpurpose (putting first‘customers’ on andfocusing message’)it‘campaign be used for cannot the focus used in political campaigns,on campaigns buthavinganalyzing adifferent Scammell 1999). This sub-field provides useful insightsinto studying marketing techniques instruments in marketing (see of political sphere, andparticularly campaigns applications in marketing scholarsusethe marketingand study of concepts instruments political the Political marketing’. – ‘political science in political sub-field another of emergence to led others. by developed lately by framework themost defining commonmodern of features campaign political which were loose for studying political campaigns.Nevertheless, Swanson and Mancini laid theoretical and broad quite is very theory modernization The campaigns. electoral of ‘mediatization’ All the aforementioned theories in the field of political communication use the political the use communication political of field in the theories aforementioned the All It is also mention necessary to interest thatthat instudyingmodern campaigns political 12 CEU eTD Collection (Katz and Mair 1995). Panebianco (1988) was among the first paying wasamongattention to and(Katz the (1988) Mair 1995).Panebianco and party 1986) cartel (Panebianco party electoral-professional as model party organization of and parties. society and andinternal in linksbetween balances checks ideology the reduction of results weakening KirchheimerOtto whoclaimed (1966), that increasing autonomy of leadershipthe from and horizontal, than vertical more it making power of transformation to lead campaigning who thatusage (1962), skilledof argued in campaign leaders party organizers and more 122). These (Farrell first raised 2006, than ideasyearswere thirty agobyMichels voters” concerns more outward to towards membersparty activists and with inward concerns awayfrom “shiftinfocus duetothe massparties bythe decline further of classical stimulate campaigns political of professionalization is that idea The 6). (1997, voters’ among party attachments in strong decline to the due party the of role the of general weakening in ‘the result campaigns of ‘scientificization’ towards drive technological and electioneering (Swanson ForMancini and instance,1996, 274). Scammell claims thatprofessionalization of democratic institutions by“weakening political parties and declining standings of politicians” inside the Someparties. modern claim scholars that political can campaigns undermine the politics. and campaigns alsoas variable independent in the certain processes party influencing organization organization and politics. Therefore, theories in andhypothesis fieldthis consider political modern highlighting on application campaigns party consequences of the political mainly campaigns political analyzes politics party of field variable, dependent asa mainly These ideas closely relate to the ideas that were further developed into ideas into of new were further ideas developed to the that These ideasclosely relate is Electoral primary influencingcampaigning concerned as goals, transformations party campaigns political study communication political of field in the theories different As 13 CEU eTD Collection came to conclusion that individual conclusioncame that to constituency campaigns mayin a result relative instance, Zittel and Gschwend, while analyzing constituency campaignsin German Elections, For party organization. of in decentralization mayresult modernusage of campaigns that individuals participatingin decisionthe (Janda 1980,108). numberof onasmaller placed a premium with organs, inparty national the making authority decision- effective of concentration the features which one as isdefined party centralized is among distributed levels the different of party’sthe leadership (Duverger1954, 52).Thus, a in distribution words withincontrol party of wayinthe which organization or other power the organization in sensethis andfor purpose the of present research is understood as the campaigns. in their techniques campaign professional new centralizedadopt more easily parties that way around, bemay other considered staff influenced by professional Also,itof byapplication and finance,are parties. campaigns power, of internal decision-making changes inparty centralization party organization, namely al. MairPanebianco 1988, Here et idea major 1999). the presentforresearch is the that party’svoters focus to from membersparty andevolution campaign of organization (see emphasized theshift in model modelsnew of party due to of invoked by organization in shift et al.,andMair internal distribution Panebianco 1999). Thus, (Mair power parties within marketing media, external consultant in andpublic changesresults relations in significant the organizations professional become electoral on professionals like polling media,marketing experts, andadvertisementexperts, parties had due techniquesandreliance of to theevolution that campaign He claimed professionalization. It is also important to mention that there are also scholars claiming quite the opposite: of party decentralization) (or centralization emphasize that itis necessary to Here Moreover, Mair claimsa shift that inof power makingdecision leaders from and to 14 CEU eTD Collection shift from shiftfrom labor-intensive more campaign capital-intensive to campaign.This means due that 2003). moremaking powerful (Kavanagh leadereven onleaders, focus increased or personalization Secondly, 2003, 3). (Kavanagh hundredseveral constituencies’ into was‘decentralized campaigning style old the while campaign, the over the headquarters party of power increased the and message adaptation party leadership ways. in two by Firstly, given its ability decide uponthe to party’s central strengthen marketingof involvementmodern and campaigns the consultants political active of ispaper isorganization What keyfor(2003) that present Kavanagh’s the argument(2003, 3). campaign in in marketing results strategy professionals party structure’ elections ‘a unitary of command strategieswinning Kavanagh that claims 2).Furthermore, (2003, directors” party’s communication including much the leader, grants the people and autonomy to liaise they – usually with the key access tothe decision-makers, direct them leader-friendly, allows tois centralized, that party mediarole of political in consultants internalchanging –“ party structure marketingthe men prefer a logic the He stressed internaldemocracy. party undermine the inpolitical campaigns) consultants results in central level. political in leaving making of national bewould on power the decision apparatus concentrated central constituency campaigning be which decentralizedcan but onlocalstill level resources the only Germanto in elections 2005. Secondly, Zittel and Gschwend analyzed only individual However,theresearchislimitedby scope apparatus. party organization decentralizing the candidates thus individual campaignscanbring moreto independence usage modern of (2008).Theyarguethat apparatus individualfrom party central independence of candidates Norris (2004),analyzing the evolution politicalof campaign highlightstechniques, the argued thatpoliticalmarketing marketing (usageof Kavanagh (2003) external 15 CEU eTD Collection professionalization of political campaigns, rather than more complex contextual societal and contextual thanmore complex rather campaigns, political of professionalization organizationalunderstand of andstructure explainpartiesdynamics to and of to process the by focuses theory centered moreRommeleproposed Gibson and internal on (2001) the party- andRommele 2001).The political (Gibson partiesthemselves within campaigns the in change of drivers the considers inthefieldwhich is atheory there However, campaigning. theories which studyfew are there butof indicators change or subjects asthe parties considerpolitical campaigns role of parties that they play in the process of adapting basis for further lay the researches. researches potential new styles of autonomy leadershipto (Farrel and Webb 2000). The dimensions in used Farrel and Webb’s givestrategic in which turn resources needs centralized campaign carefully coordinated 19). The research, intimately with it leadership, party emergingthe associated as main house’ the (2000, power basedpart face, that with of parliamentary parties, within relations internal the andespecially power on the data andmodernfrom Webb also emphasize that political campaigns ‘reflect ageneralshiftin the nine Western European countries, shows that professionalization and centralization of party organization (Farrell and Webb and 2000) party (Farrell of andcentralization organization professionalization by of parties new campaign style resulted in organizational by adaptation namely parties, stages of professionalization of political campaigns they come the to argument that adaptation the analyzing Firstly, parties. of organization the affecting campaign modern of role the also morefinances on members thanonparty and organization. party structure in general. This also can be understood as professional political campaigns rely in and campaigns in political important so not are branches local and volunteers members, increased usageof party and‘mediatization’ polls opinion to the paid consultants, of usage In sum, all aforementioned existing theories on professionalization of political of professionalization on theories existing aforementioned all sum, In Farrel Farrel Webb and not(2000) studied only rolethe of parties inmodern campaigns, but 16 . Farrell CEU eTD Collection factors are: factors Those campaign. political to move in their parties for important as considered which factors four set theory the First, level of professionalization. can influencethe that factors party determinants by modernizationproposed Gibson theory.andidentify Rommele (2001) six party model party weak organization, asmostwith of countries lack in parties the post-communist countries in that show organization Studiestransition of post-communist produced Russia. parties in post-communist countries, and studiesparticularly political of campaigns and party 1.3 Parties and campaigns in post-communist countries and Russia The last theoretical field which is important for the present research is the study of study isthe research present the for important is which field theoretical last The professional whichtechniques make their to changes gain more bigger. voters primary iswhose winbe areexpectedmore to goal easily to elections adapt to then left-wingthen parties (Kavanagh 1995; Scammel 1995). consultants useof external the andto marketing technologies to more open right-wing parties because of the ideology. Right-wing parties are considered lesscommunist professional adaptive parties campaign techniques as would to external expertise (Farrel Web and 2002, Norris 2002,Mair etal. 1999). makes the process of adaptation to new techniques easier, particularly usage of which organization, party of structure hierarchical implies campaign political type of capital intensive campaign (Gibson and Rommele2009,208) beapply large able to resources thatpartiesassumes needsufficiently this to a. b. c. d. Vote-seeking as a primary goal of parties: Thelogic is that parties Right-wing ideology: Here, the argument is that left-wing or left-wing is that argument the Here, ideology: Right-wing Centralization of internal structure: The logic of of The logicprofessional internal structure: of Centralization Resources: Usage of professional campaigning techniques campaigning professional Usageof Resources: 17 CEU eTD Collection campaign professionalization mentioned above. Furthermore, there are no studies which tried which studies no are there Furthermore, above. mentioned professionalization campaign by consultants Russian in parties butfully campaigning their features other ignored of marketing media,PRand of only external existing researched studies usage Furthermore, campaigns. political of professionalization the confirm will that in Russia campaigns campaigns in by Russian parties. Thus, the field lacks empirical the studies of political consultants by the parties. political external of usage concerns it particularly in elections; parties Russian by used is Plasser (2002)in their study globalof marketingpolitical claim professional that campaigning “Americanization” of Fritzworldwide campaigning”334). political Plasser(2009, and Gunda the “mirrored campaigning inRussia thatpolitical and political argues consultants Furthermore, at“multi-billion indigenous(2009, 332). Hutcheson industry” points of dollar morebecome important” campaigns have and era “thewell-resourced professional Putin in that argue Hutcheson extent. full to activities campaign professional use in Russia parties making 1998,Hutcheson 2003and (Golosov can process one 2005a).Therefore, claim that membership, position with dominantthe leaders andparty of centralized structure of decision- mass without established strong organization lack the party of dueto campaigns professional bureaucratized and with dominantthe position of leadersparty (Enyedi 2006). ascentralized, parties arecharacterized the post-communist isimportant, moreWhat even amongis post-communistproducemass scholars did transition that not 2006). (Enyedi parties fact Nevertheless, common the agreed (Enyedi 2006). ascomplex organizations considered be can countries in post-communist parties the that claim scholars some time, same mass and membership, structure onleaders highly adeveloped depend (Mair 1997).Atthe First, there is limited systematic comparative evidence confirming usage of professional parties in moreStudies of confirm parties adaptivethat are tothe Russian Russian 18 CEU eTD Collection measures the professionalization of measures the professionalization political of campaigns. I will purpose, apply by CAMPROFindex the elaborated Gibson and which Rommele (2009), For this 2007. elections Duma Federation in of Russian State partiesparticipated which campaigns. organization and dynamics impacttheextent towhichprofessional to adapt parties internal versa party vice that and internalorganization, party on techniques development 2000, Kavanagh for consequences1995) which claim the of campaign professional (2001) andtodifferent by extentelaborated scholarsother Web (Farrel and 2000, Norris by and Rommele it basedtheory isproposed Gibson party-centered the reason mainly on in Russiaimpact politicalcampaigning? thelevel ofprofessionalization oftheir professionalized campaigningprofessionalized in Russia. of theory party-centered the studiestesting empirical field lacks the least, not the but last, The of campaigns. political intheirparties professionalization measurebetween variety to the In the next Chapter I will study the level of professionalization of campaigningby The question of this research is: research this of The question how do the internal factors factors internal and thestructurehow ofparties do the 19 Forthis CEU eTD Collection and with maximumthe score of 30 (Gibson and Rommele 2009). used by party the all.at Then all arecombined scores the into one index having 10dimensions party partially engaged inthe activity during campaigning and0means activity the not that is the that 1indicates score by party, the engaged is extensively theactivity which assigned to activitythe assignedfully whichis in to by of campaigning,developed 2 is party the ascore from 3. measured of by Generally, isis scale parties, ascore the 0 to 3 eachdimension be. used variance Tocapture by the itscampaigns between campaigningto professionalized more the inactivities those aparty engages extensively more Rommele The 2009). dimensions which are theparty activities in key campaigning(Gibson professional and 1. mentionedin includesThe CAMPROFtheoretical index framework elaborated 10 Chapter professionalthe dimensions arebased on based Those dimensions on of campaigning. 10 Namely, developedis authors anindexCAMPROF the professionalization)(campaign that indicator. multidimensional a developing by campaigns political of professionalization Rommele (2009). and by Gibson elaborated methodology the research uses present The studies. national measuring professionalization of political campaigns of parties within the country or incampaigns presented above thefieldcross- definitely lacks the developed standardmethodology for political of professionalization on andconceptualization theory elaborated well the Despite professionalization campaigns of political inof parties Duma Russian State elections in 2007. 2.1 CAMPROF index for measuring professionalization ofcampaigns Chapter 2: Measuring the professionalization of parties campaigns parties of professionalization the Measuring 2: Chapter Gibson a Rommele and methodological (2009)elaborated for measuring framework the the measure to needs research the thesis the of hypothesis the testing Before in the State Duma of Russian Federation elections in 2007 in elections Federation ofRussian Duma State in the 20 CEU eTD Collection extensively developed or partially developed. For instance, “fully partially between difference the For or extensively developed. developed CAMPROF index judgmentrequires activitythe whether of isparty fully developed, individualAs based judgmentof the on the researcher(coder). the application the of parties. by campaigning in professional involvement of extent the show which of parties is it is practical activities index thatthe basedon of CAMPROF the advantage between theparties (Esser 2004,Swansonand and Pfetsch Mancini Another 1996 and others). studdingdifferences the orcountries without country extensive the of qualitative research just involved measurecampaigns of theprofessionalization to All attempts parties. previous between variance the showing at aimed is which campaigns political of professionalization are considered moreresearch (Gibson subjective as and Rommele 2009). PR/mediaopinion computerized opposition andconducting polling consultants, databases, certainly more and verifiable visible,information.publicly accessible Theuseofoutside based isbecause be objective, index on the to more campaigning areconsidered continuous and headquarters campaign outside newsletters, subscription email System, Communication subjective variables. Forinstance, use telemarketingof anddirect mail,internal/intranet polling; conducting opposition research (Gibson andRommele 2009). campaigning; use of outside public relations/media/marketing consultants; use of opinion subscription listfor regular news updates; headquarters;outside campaign continuous groups; presence of internal an communication Internet system; ‘sign-up’email or andoutside groups useof target maildirect for members contacting own andoutside target However, most of the dimensions of the CAMPROF index are very subjective and subjective very are index CAMPROF the of dimensions the of most However, The index is onlymethodologicalCAMPROF measuringfortool the theextentof Gibson and Rommele (2009)divide these dimensions into objective andmore members for and contacting both own telemarketing include: useof The dimensions 21 CEU eTD Collection If the party employs consultants and they are on the same levelparties prior role during and butalso the elections, in of consultants process. decision-making of power with party officials Employment ofpublic relations/marketing/media consultants measured. are they how and (2009) Rommele and Gibson by index CAMPROF the from dimension each in detail discuss I Below, campaigning. of means “traditional” the with it comparing this it problem if makejudgmentdecided was to is activity the extensively by developed solve “partially means the To or developed” developed”, were“fully “extensively developed”. decideto whichproportion of by population the contacted such meansbe would considered as by of population the andcontacted The problemsuch meansGibson Rommele(2009). hereis measuredinstance, they telemarketing bylooking directmailvariables and proportion atthe State in Russian Duma parties by campaigns political of professionalization the measuring for electionsresearch in 2007 with a minimum partiallyor depends developed on nationalthe context. adjustmentengagement of parties into opinion research or direct mail is to be considered fully developedfor for instance,whether certain since, country specific to the applying reinterpretation while the Russian or adaptation the CAMPROFindexneedssome Furthermore, relative than absolute. context. mostly ForAlso, index are of dimensions the the 2009). Rommele researcher (Gibson and the quantitative involved, are numbersof population individualjudgment others basedonthe of scale in may scope make potentially the variancebetween parties lesssignificant. judge.reducing the arevery But to difficult scores “extensively developed” and developed” The index by CAMPROF Gibson and Rommele (2009)is applied in presentthe mail be by can assessed likedirect and telemarketing While some dimensions Measuring this activity it is not only important if the consultants wereif by consultants employed the itisimportant activity notonly Measuring this 22 CEU eTD Collection other means. If the party is notusing telemarketing at all itis assigned score 0. ifis party given uses telemarketing, tool lesserthis butthe roleplay incampaigning than given if telemarketing is applied as equally ‘traditional’ means 1 other of campaigning. Score Score 2is memberssupporters. campaign’ anddoor party to bylocal campaigningas ‘door by is largerthan telemarketing population meansof the contacted ‘traditional’ the is be.to Score 3 is given to the party if the proportion of the population contacted by means of campaign the in more professionalized the activity The moreengaged this a party extensively Use oftelemarketing isscore 0. department other and team between campaign clearcase ofno separation In 1. score headquarter, of party the rest the to separations personnel less clear but department clearly defined personal separation is 2.The score the establishedteam campaign or 3; if is unit dedicatedcampaign working withthere team or withinheadquarters party the the and is score the outsourced and physically campaigns of election realization and elaboration means development activity this department aassigned isteam forfully in of or which charge campaign management team that organizes andmanages the election campaign. The full The theories on professionalization of political campaign imply the development of a separate Campaign Headquarters score is 0. with less thanis politiciansif power score nothe 1and useof outside consultants at all, the time to time from only employed are consultant if the 2; is score the party the of politicians the than power less have but frequently employed are consultants the if is 3; score the 23 CEU eTD Collection communication the score is score 0. the communication nosuch tool hasof party basis. If the arenotcoming on regularly/weekly if1 newsletters score newsletters; is weekly having onlygeneric party the 2 score assigned to coming weekly; both to theparty andmorea genericnewsletters newsletter having targeted/individualized 3isassigned maximum andscore is The orgeneral. individualized morenewsletter targeted This ismeasured baseddimension thefrequency on newsletter and party the of ifthe Subscription Newsletter E-mail intosystem the score is 1; and the score is 0 if the system is notused in the party. included national only andit local isstaff score 2; assigned if national staffonly is included system the If is 3. score assigned the members and staff local and national included system internal communication If is which used. tool to this extent depends on the score Here the Internal/Intranet Communication System all 0. score at is itassigned tool means.in lessernot roleisusing campaigningplay other If than party the telemarketing ‘traditional’ means of 1 iscampaigning. Score givenif the party mailuses direct butthis tool, mail Score2is members applied if asother supporters. equally party given and direct by contacted todoor as meansof campaign’ ‘traditional’ the ‘door bylocal campaigning by mail means of islarger direct population contacted the proportion population the than of ifthe party the to 3 isgiven Score telemarketing. for as measurement is the same Here Direct Mail 24 CEU eTD Collection not useopinion inpolling campaignsthescore the is 0. is score 1;andif occasionally the does isif party the 2;theparty opposition researches orders oppositionfor from campaign the scorethe externalpollingthe researches purposes institutes uses frequently is 3;ifthe party score the strategy) for campaign used then results where the (and campaigns before andduring election the onopposition parties conducting research hasforown If unitteam campaigning. research party professional itsdedicated the or Like with the opinion polls the opposition research is used for shaping the strategy in Opposition Research score is 1; if the party does not use opinion polling in the campaigns the score is 0. scoreisthe 2;if party the uses opinion polls occasionally either on national local levelor the partyfrequentlythe pollsorders for campaign the purposes from externalthe polling institutes relation to the election campaigns and results is used for campaign strategy, the score is 1; if in polls opinion for unitconducting research team or itshas owndedicated If the party Opinion Polling score is 0 if the party does not have ordoes not operate the database. the and level; local or national on use occasionally and database the have party the if assigned party havefrequently use and both national suchdatabase on andlocallevel; 1is thescore mustwho bemoreswitching vulnerable to is party, score the 3. Thescore2is assigned ifthe local level for to identify and target potential voters, particularly for swing voters or those and national atboth regularly database the If used party voters. the of local database and/or national by looking party usethe whether andmake have ismeasured of This at activity Databases Computerized 25 CEU eTD Collection semi-structured interview with leading of wereconducted representative political the semi-structured and Boyarskiy 2007). 2009, Kertman 2007, Karpenko2008,Shlyapujnikov and Elkin 2008, Fil’ 2008,Tikhomirov 2008, Malkin and Suchkov 2004, Hanov 2008, Krainov 2008,Hutcheson 2008, Gel’man Evgen’eva 2007, Mihaleva 2007,SanaevNechaeva 2005, 2007,Tolstyh 2007, Chernyshov Zaslavskii 2007, Yanbuhtin 2007 and 2008,Buzin and Lyubarev2008,Buzin 2007, organization, and on campaign documents guidance internal parties’ parties Federation websites, (CIKRF), Russian of Commission Election Central for provided reports financial parties’ detailed analytical analysis is score 0. the period campaign election before the months of is 6 deployed isif none of score activities the 1; and the activities tothree one between politicalthe official campaignscampaign if party the deploys from seven nine up to professional 6monthscampaign activities prior to the score forof thepurpose research, this Thus, activities. campaign’ measureis ‘continuous campaign to 3; ifof the otherparty and Rommeledeploys (2009) propose usage of 6 month time periodbefore the start of official or ‘hot’ Gibson experts period. from campaign official the before well a time at four activities campaign professional to six the (Borisovscore iswhich applying aparty to extent atthe look is to campaign isparty continuous using is 1; way measureand regulations. Thebest country and ifa contextto judgmentspecific different and measure subjectivity the of to due isalso most dimension difficult the this 2002). But campaigns (Gibson andRommele 2009,Swanson andMancini 1996, Plasser and Plasser of professional the features be of revealing most one the to is considered This dimension Continuous Campaigning In findingsaddition, the which willbe described arebased below interviews. on the The For the purpose of the present research the data was collected by means of analysis of 26 CEU eTD Collection are not employed at all.employed at are not mean it not thatexternal does consultants party the organization (Kynev 2004). Nevertheless, responsible so-called campaigning” “permanent the for partieswithin establish departments ButisglobalRussian2002). also there a trend campaigningthat and political Plasser (Plasser Russiabe is considered tofully and developed mirroringthus “Americanization” trend of in usage the in Furthermore, of consultants campaigns election andmarketing public relations campaigns has developed intoindigenous ‘multi-billion industry’dollar (Hutcheson 2009). by step on basis. campaign step professionalization DumaState in elections is 2007 there aneed describein to detail of each of dimensions the 2.2 Results of campaign professionalization measurement abovementioned analytical articles and reports. analysis of interviews thourough the and results findingscombined the Therefore, parties. the limited very from internal information intervieweesthe in duetothe was received restrictions variablesthe ranking of above. index andscore CAMPROF the system described However, LDPR. Bykov –Head of Central Election Committee of Just Russia in 2007, Mitrofanov Alexey – Press SecretaryCentral of Election Committee of United Russia in 2007, Igor’ Yakovlev – Press Secretary of Yabloko Party,informational-technological centre of CPRFVictor Yaroslav Grekov, El’dar Yanbuhtin –Deputy of the head of the 1 Dumain in State headquarters 2007 elections Russian the consulting NikkoloM and company were in party officials who parties’the campaign The interviewees were - Directorof analytical department in Nikkolo MCompany Michail Afanas’ev, Head of According to experts the market of political consultants specializing on electoral market specializingon experts consultants the political According of to Consultants Before presenting overall index CAMPROF results by partiesthe during last Russian 27 1 . Theinterviews and were based on CEU eTD Collection officials claimed that separate campaign unit with clearly defined personal separation was separation personal defined campaignclearly separate with unit that officials claimed campaign. over the headquarters leaderfrom the of party implies control campaign the organization of hierarchical structure as the headquarters inFurthermore, well.campaign and party the unit in functions in samemayfulfill clear unitwas not The personnel campaign parties. some Also, outside separationbetween for the headquarters. party the the working personnel had campaign which campaign.was physically none the partiesthe unit of Nevertheless, managementunitteam manageswell or organizesthat thepolitical established and campaign campaign expertise. house party primarily relied itson well internal anddeveloped structure personnel in-and so-called occasionally consultants external employed and for personnel specialprofessional and experienced its on relied party projects the oractivity in this tasksscore 1 assigned were Russia Just and onRussia United tender officials. party to left basis. CPRF got 0 for was process in decision-making role primary the thisNevertheless, Russia”). of Party Democratic activity. The involved external “Ada-Agency” PR Company on a daily basis “Liberal- (Political Party Democratic Party ‘YABLOKO’). LDPR received 2 scores for this activity.The party managers in deciding aboutthecampaign (Politicalstrategies “Russian UnitedParty responsible party the with role equal played and by party the wereemployed “Kross-media” dimension is receivedby External Yabloko. individual consultants and themedia company role in making differsdecision process from party.party to 3in Thehighestscore this The findings show indeedthat were external widely consultants employed byparties buttheir LDPR, JustRussiareceived in and Yabloko2scores this activity as interviewed party The findings show that this dimensions was wellby developed Eachparty parties. had Campaign Headquarters 28 CEU eTD Collection 2008). Just Russia also received 3 scores for each of the activities. more than (Kraynov not budgets otherpartiesmail spenttheir7% of and agencieswhile direct Russia spend15%of their budget campaign calling on centerswhich telemarketing conducted actively involved indirect mail duringand telemarketing theinstance, campaign.For Just Russia also Just ‘YABLOKO’). Party United Democratic “Russian Party (Political activities 3 scoresfor each got inthe of mainstrategy campaign.with Yabloko the telemarketing, by means directphoneof Also, Yabloko calls.extensively mail direct used which was, along population telemarketing activity, which “Infotel” reaching Company Call-Centre conducted for this by paying particular attention to telemarketing andmail. direct The party employed Yabloko, having no such human resources on local level as other parties, tried to compensate agitation printing production (Tihomirov and Boyarskiy 2007). Most parties spent huge amounts and efforts on networks of agitators and different kinds of public events, telemarketingmail anddirect not play did roleimportant in party campaigning. compare with otherthe traditional agitation such tools todoorcampaign, meetings, door as campaign functions performed forperiod other everyday of party headquarters. work The staffemployed party asthecampaignthe headquarters. timeforpersonnel the unit of and unit incampaign personnel between clear separation not was there Therefore, Committee. General basisExecutive of on the wereestablished headquarters isthat The problem with personnel headquarter strictdevelopedstructure. and hierarchical designated campaign 1 score.Inboth cases hadvery received KPRF andUntiedparties Russia established. Telemarketingmailand direct was utilized by tocertain extentall Butto parties. Directand Mail Telemarketing 29 CEU eTD Collection scores for this activity.CPRF, United Russia and Just Russia used the system only on national 2 got party The ‘YABLOKO’). Party Democratic United “Russian Party levels (Political for coordination ondifferent period usedactively of campaign activities campaign during was which and branches local and national connecting one the had Yabloko communication. local between some of had andheadquarters internal work a system branches parties of Russian campaigning. thefor campaign parties coordination during the Nevertheless, period members along with be staff.the Thus,this activity considered cannot fully developed in None of Russian the internal/intranet hadparties communication system included which telemarketing anddirectmail with but insignificant coverage of population. party the used admitted officials As interviewed activity. samethe eachof for the 1score localon level for application mailof direct but toinsignificanttechnique extent. LDPR got activists Russia 1 for directmail, CPRF,United party The used scored also as insignificant. was of electorate coverage but the Management” “Telecom of Call-agency services commissioned as theparty for telemarketing 1 score got Russia United Russia”). “United Party Political (All-Russian press and TV on advertisement political on the resources of most United Russiausedboth verytelemarketing anddirectmailto limited extentwhilespending by party. adopted the not Thefull 1 score for party mail.extent. directgot 0 forCPRF telemarketing got asis tool this mail technique of the applied of Thus, Russian isthe directFederation”). not bytheparty to Party “Communist Party (Political personally materials agitation other with letters delivered campaign”, “door party when the todoor activists of moredeliveringmessages to resembled mailCPRF used direct by local localcampaign levels unitson method of Also only. the Internal/Intranet Communication System 30 CEU eTD Collection campaign strategy campaign strategy national level.on local campaign Nevertheless local units used database on have for Federation”).not voters also shaping databaseof United Russia did computerized Russian the of Party “Communist Party (Political 1 scores got CPRF therefore, level; to make the campaign more targeted. Nevertheless, there was notgeneral database on national databaseoperated bylocal branch in and each itsused itconstituency for campaign purposes strategy both on national in stagesof campaigning voters the of early database the frequently used Yabloko LDPR and and local level. These parties got 3 scores for this activity. CPRFactivity. this duringuse 0 fornot email newsletters subscription United Therefore, Russia got elections. theparty did updates, andregular coverage larger news serviceswith with developed website well had Russia United Although, activity. 1on this CPRF scores basis. Therefore, weekly noton newsletter subscription CPRFhadgeneral Nevertheless, news latest updates. and the Yabloko and LPDR got 2scores for this activity. CPRF alsohad forum debates on its website information. party Furthermore, the had weblogs of leadersparty andofficials. JustRussia, general with weekly distributed was newsletter The non-members. and members by both which be had in. subscribed andLDPR anewsletter can interested Yabloko were JustRussia, targeted/individualized where newsletters you could what choose kindinformation of you system, the score is 0. nothave1 scorefor this LDPR level. the activity. got parties these did Thus, Surprisingly, Computerized database more with along newsletter subscription email a generic had parties the of None Email subscription newsletters 31 CEU eTD Collection for these score. for these not use opposition research for directly or indirectly guiding their strategy. Both parties got 0 stages ofits campaign 1 score for strategy and this got activity.CPRF and United Russia did ontheearly company from only external commissioned andLDPR usedresearch opposition shaping its campaign strategy. This party 2scores forgot this campaign activity. JustRussia basisfor from on outside regular researches opposition commissioned Yablokoresearch. score for thisgot 1 activity. opinion from occasionally polling The external and it alsocommissioned companies. party opinion andfocuspolls from groups companiesresearch but only occasionally. 1 scorescored 2for this for opinionactivity. got CPRF Theparty polls. commissioned “JustRussia”). LDPR also frequently opinioncommissioned polls from external sources and “Vardis” and actively used the 2 scores forresults this activity. Just Russia also commissioned opinion polls from externalin company campaign strategy, got Russia United strategies. for campaign shaping department by wereused analytical results the score was 2 (Politicaland Party Foundation) Opinion like from party commissionedandthe frequently opinion companies polls groups focus research Nevertheless, researches. opinion of conduction for unit own its have not did Russia United voters at all, the score is 0. level, scoreisalso the 1.Surprisingly,Russia diduse Just not computerizedthe databaseof VTsIOM None of the parties dedicated a unit within itsNone for of parties aunit organization within conducting opposition dedicated the researchOpposition Opinion polls (All-Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion), Public of Study the for Centre (All-Russian Perspectiva (All-Russian Political Party “United Russia”). Then the 32 FOM Yabloko used Yabloko (ThePublic CEU eTD Collection the party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning (Gibson and Rommele 2001)can (Gibson andRommele campaigning theory of party-centered professionalized the by proposed factors internal Iwill Chapter, if next In analyze party parties. between results in is a variance there Nevertheless, materials. agitation and advertisement mainly on TV, rely still in Russia parties that show campaigns party of Analysis consultants. political extent, some to and, newsletters subscription email polls, opinion like campaigning professional 2009). The parties findingsshow that some areextensively dimensions of use alsoonly Rommele and (Gibson applied was index CAMPROF same the where Rommele and Gibson by federal 2005 election of German in research the 24accordingly 27and in scored Germany, leading parties two (CDU/CSU), Democrats and Christian (SPD) Democrats Social instance, professional campaigningby inthe StateDumaRussian parties of For Russia in 2007. of level low the show findings the Generally, accordingly. CPRF and Russia United score. The highest result1. Surprisingly, the general results show that none of the partiesof is even close to the maximum Yabloko is 21 scores and the lowest scores 8 score for thisand activity, which means that parties were 7 just partiallyscored engaged in this activity. by just1 got parties all general, system. In internal communication andnewsletters – campaign official before activities two used LDPR and Yabloko system. communication internal in activities pollingand – involved two opinion opposition research. was Russia United start of consultants, campaigningperiod. Theopinion party actively official used and polls activities beforethe professional three JustRussiaoperated campaigning campaign activities. campaigning whichmonths, period, parties have only was few3 conducted professional a The total results scored by parties in the CAMPROF index are presented below by inTable in index The CAMPROF scored are presented parties the results total This fully also by Russianactivity wasnot developed Before parties. the official Continuous Campaigning 33 CEU eTD Collection Table 1.Results parties’of professionalized campaigningmeasured bytheCAMPROF index DumaState Elections in 2007. by in variables parties forlevel be the campaigns produced of professionalized explanatory Campaign Yabloko dimension Database Computerized Newsletter E-mail Subscription System Communications Intranet Direct mail Telemarketing Headquarters Campaign Consultants Total Campaigning Continuous Opposition Research Opinion polling 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 21 1 2 1 Russia 34 Just 0 2 1 3 3 2 1 16 1 1 2 LDPR 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 14 1 1 2 United Russia 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 0 2 CPRF 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 1 0 1 CEU eTD Collection and expenditures in a given year. Also,year.and expenditures parties’ inagiven campaign expenditures 2007were political on political by campaigns parties. of professionalization promoting factor is resources financial of level high Namely, campaign. of is parties an factor forexplanatory adaptation(‘priming’) of professional political 3.1 Levelof financial resources not vote-seekers, this study does not include that variable intoanalysis. or asvote-seekers inRussia classify parties Asisto 2007). it difficult (Hale ideational parties four itbe types is incan perceivedthat theirprimary goal vote-seeking, caseof even by all of the strategies analyzing Nevertheless, ideational,minorclientelist (Hale 2007). and defined by political parties’ capital.four party Heidentifies intypes Russia: programmatic, Haleis (2007)argues instrategy is party that Russia defined byparty whichinturn type Whiteall 2007,Gel’mancan beseen asvote-maximization 2008). parties’ goal (S. primary is that in the ‘clientelist’ party system of Russia with the hierarchical factors. ‘priming’ system of competition campaigning bycomparing results received byCAMPROF index and analysis of three of internal factors Russian andtestthe theory parties party-centered professional of centralizationpolitical campaigning: vote-seeking asa internal goal, right-wingprimary ideology, and high identified fourtheory internal determine factors of that toprofessionalized move parties level of resources. In this Chapter I will analyze three ‘priming’ The high level of resources available for parties was measured by overall party income forwas measured level by The high parties party overall available of resources Gibsonin Rommele and (2001) theory their argue that party-centered level resources of a reason The primary as whichgoal. is vote-seeking factor analyze fourth I willnot the As was mentioned in Chapter 1,Gibson in (2001) and Rommele their party-centered Chapter 3 Testing Party-Centered Theory Party-Centered Testing 3 Chapter 35 CEU eTD Collection Federation at Federation Duma election campaign in 2007. Available at Central Election Commission of Russian Source: financial reports of election funds of Russian parties for participation in Russian State Commission of Russian Federation at Central Election Available at 2007. for of parties of the account Statements Source: 1, 185, 433, 985, 420, 521, 787, 533, 766, Expenditures 364,284,088 890 479 187 774 Income Table 2Overall Parties Incomein2007 (in Russian roubles) budgets (eleven times smaller than budgetthe of United Russia). lowest the had Yabloko that shows also analysis The campaigns. of implementation the for United showsthat elections Russia, Just Russia andLDPR hadfinancial largest the resources year in of incomethe and expenditures analysis of Table2).The parties’ (see analyzed largest amounts of funds KPRFon campaigning. looks modestelection comparing with Table 3Expenditures ofRussianpartiesinelection campaign 2007 campaign. election on of spent exactparties amount on DumaRussian electionsState gives Thesefinancial in 2007 (seeTable3). information reports in funds election parties’ of reports financial analyzing by obtained be can information expenditures expenditures election without deposit Total Again parties thesefindings showthat LDPRand RussiaUnited Russia, Just spentthe even more precise But of parties. resources of availability the Table 2 shows http://www.cikrf.ru/elect_duma/finans/index.jsp 398, 350,397 ,0 4 8,60 6,56 1 57 3,91 6,11 0 189, 462, 189, 111, 2, 403 547, 808 564, 094, 230, 506, 288, 901 913 660 United Russia United Russia - - 9,53 5, 2,06 7 172, 327, 053, 036, 391, 109 570 573, 350, Just Russia Just LDPR http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/svodn_otchet.jsp 36 - Just Russi Just LDPR KPRF CPRF - 132, 690,660 72, 690,660 Yabloko Yabloko CEU eTD Collection Democratic Party ‘YABLOKO’). Party Democratic of its total expenses on activities mentioned above (Political Party “Russian United the same time, there is a little bit different situation with Yabloko. The party spent about 70 % At Federation). Russian the of Commission Election (Central materials agitation andprinted LDPR and Just Russia where about isin Russia, United The samesituation Federation”). of Russian the Party “Communist Party 90 % of expenses(Political campaign spent election on expenses all of out % on90 almost TV is together and which materials press advertisement 100 10 and advertisement,agitation advertisement 347 735 printed press on on 058 893 45 spent CPRF instance, For materials. printed 549 of production radio and TV on 271 were spenton paid on TV, paid advertisement articles andadvertisementin press, and mostin expenditure 2007shows elections expenditures of parties’ However, detail analysis LDPRandFair United Russia. of Russia, expenses four timesare 2007of lessthanelection Thus, “pure”expenseson Yabloko elections threshold. required passedthe becausethey amountdeposit, of election without table the in60 also parties arepresented 000 other while expensesof deposit, election 000 roubles of lessYablokogot than in 4% 2007 elections expendituresthe onelection campaign included by Commission.Election Central reimbursed depositwhich theirelection receive 4%have campaigns. United LDPR andJust Russia, funds Russiahaving twice lesser almost on election spent Also, it is important to mention that according to Russian electoral legislation parties legislation electoral Russian to according that mention to important is it Also, 37 CEU eTD Collection constituent regions of the Russian Federation (Hutcheson 2005b). Also, new legislation from new legislation Also, 2005b). (Hutcheson Federation Russian of the regions constituent members along with branches with not less than (Stykow 2007). apparatuses 500 members in on andnow party morethe arebecoming candidates the dependent important more not less than halfbecoming in Russia party organizations Asanymore. aresult, asanindependent compete of the iscompete ita party on list possiblehas to and seat not to for aparliamentary candidate solely on areelected deputies system where electoral a strictly lists to andproportional mandate party the basisRussian system election shifted from a mixed system electoral combinedthat voting in single- of partylegislation, new to according all, of First requirements. memberships and organizational many lists (“ parties inRussia influencedchangesof inorganizational by structure parties, toughening Statethe Duma andalsofor regional increasedlegislatures from 5% to7% (Gel’man 2008). pass to instance,for to 2007).For thresholdparliamentarianism parties electoral the (Stykow shrinking the party competition, whichinlong perspective would strengthen by inRussia system party consolidating and centralizing stabilizing, at aimed were changes the Officially, parties. of organization internal and environment institutional for implications well. as campaign political and structure organization party impact can it how and parties on legislation analyze briefly will I professionalization, 3.2.1 Institutional environment for parties’ organization inRussia 3.2 Internal Structure of Parties Furthermore, according to new legislation parties are required to have at least50, have at 000 to are required parties legislation new according to Furthermore, political on legislation new that is research present the for important more is What In 2001-2003 there werein changes Russian legislationelection bearing significant levelinfluence thatBeforecampaign can internal discussing the structure of parties’ O politicheskihpartiyah 38 ” 2001). Therefore, every Therefore, ” 2001). CEU eTD Collection organization: central level party, sub-national party and the parliamentary party. andthe parliamentary party level sub-national central party, organization: sub national 2001, Farrel Webb at The centraland research 2000). look spending versus will to transfers Rommele and Gibson (see centralized units parties of structure internal if the show which variables and theRussian parties. Therefore, first, the research will look at the parties’ staff and expenditures proportionas can structure befactor influencing a the level of professionalization campaigns by of political of paid parties staffof decision-makingprocessinRussian structure Centralized versusdecentralized 3.2.2 on three different localnumber of branches show parties that aredeveloping their organizational structure. Russia would change duenewlegislation, significantly to statistics the of membership and levels While(Hanov structure 2007). itisyet notclear if of organizational structure the parties in of party more placesno for butonly ‘empty forvessel’ parties parties with organizational strong the compete as independent (Smyth 2006, Gel’man 2008). Many experts claim that now there are elimination law due possibility the discipline federal on of to partiesto parties increases the Federation Russia1 hasnow about 500 000 members in andbranches constituentsubjects all of Russian (All-Russianforcesmaintain parties to anddevelop Forinstance, organizational structure. strong United Politicalunstable parties (Stykow 2007). Second, memberships requirementthe on and local branches Party “United2007, comparing with 139 parties and organizations political in 1999, eliminating smalland Russia”).instance, in 15parties number parties of registered reduced to For impossible. the almost Third, became party entities small the survival of that was legislation of new resultThe first the some expertstheir electoral support if they obtain at leastclaim 3% of the vote (Gel’man 2008). to in proportion assistance financial state the for that eligible now are parties is that amendment 2005 prohibits pre-election (WilsonAnother importantparty coalitions (blocs) 2005). However, the present research is interested in the question if the centralized internal if in centralized question the the isinterested presentresearch the However, 39 CEU eTD Collection Commission of Russian Federation at annualSource: financial of for 2007.AvailableatCentral Russian parties reports Election Table 4.Parties expenditures oncentral governing bodiesversus sub-national in2007 units shows parties expenditures oncentral versusheadquarters sub-national in units 2007. judgmentaboutinternal structure of party organization. give not anyplausible information staff would the about Therefore, structure. hierarchical the due to organization vis-à-vis parliamentary the by organization employed extra-parliamentary itdifferentiate between is Moreover, staff to again impossible the 2007). (White practically Also,2007). staff considerably changes when arein elections and then progress decrease waslow itsof central becausemostofthe staff basis on unpaidapparatus (White worked became members of the campaigns staff.For instance, the Communist party claimed their cost full-time a on worked who basis,volunteers officials, paid between distinguish to theis difficult it that showed assistance that work employ full-timea substantial staff analysis 2007).The on(White conductedbyWhite (2007) the members of the Dumanational and parliamentary levels.and But the level of fundingemployees that parties enjoy allowed them to who central central body governing branches, local are largerthan expenditureson on central governing Expenditures expenditures on central on branches on local body However, there is information available for analysis of parties’ expenditures. Table 4 Table expenditures. of parties’ for analysis available isinformation there However, sub- central, on staff separation parties’ on preciselocate information It is to impossible The findings on party expenditure show that except Just Russia, on expenditures except where that onparty show The findings expenditure ,04 0,59 4,95 6 11, 516, 146, 1, 370 925, 044, 760 000, 509 United Russia 2,79 0 18 6,04 1, 17, 158, 104, 032, 960, 388 228, 379 084 769, 800 Just Russia Just http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/svodn_otchet.jsp 40 LDPR 89, 710,529 CPRF 76, 876,750 16, 720,284 Yabloko CEU eTD Collection hierarchical structure (S. White 2007). The first reason is the party formation. The party formation.first (S.White ishierarchicalwas The party structure party reason The 2007). the structure. in hierarchical internal the parties between different variations areconsiderable there However, in like CPRF. Committee instance, forbyCentral leaders (S.Whiteare elected, 2007).Party leaders of elections party instance, haveindirect all almost Komarovskiparties White 2004).For extent 2007, (S. andstructure allowparticipatemembers their to in very decision-making to limited process The is2006). general all hierarchical of analyses havevery inRussia conclusion parties that White 2003, and(Komarovskyparties’ 2004,Volokhov andstatues programs D. 2003, Popov numberof analyses of making There area process. decision the andinfluencing leaders activein branchesmembers parties totake theirpart party allow andregional choosing what extent look to to important is it bemade. Particularly, areto decisions of avariety how i.e. parties’ whichindicate the makingrules of process, decision analyze parties’ the rules structure. decentralized organizational notHowever,Unitedmeanit Russiahas does that parties taken oftogether. other budgets all larger than the local thebranches amount party on spent by the set legislation, the requirement fulfill the barely which parties other unlike of Federation the subject each constituent in has branches local Russia United here.Since is United Russia a clearexample branches. local on funds of amounts huge spend to have parties Therefore, Federation. Russian the of subjects constituent half in than less in not branches local have to obliged are Parties above. mentioned Russia in parties political on in legislation set requirements organizational Thefindings canbeexplainedbythe Russian that structure. decentralized have parties mean not itdoes However, branches. onlocal lowerexpenditures than significantly body are United Russia’s party organization is considered to be with highly to iscentralized considered organization party United Russia’s In order to see if the parties’ internal organization is centralized or not, itis necessary to 41 CEU eTD Collection organs at any level (All-Russian of governingbodies, and freely address theirexpressing views party questionsand to to Political Party membersparty include receiving information party, the about appealing against“United decision the Russia”). Furthermore, of party body instructionparty governing and undergo of (Komarovski 2004).Therights members of responsible for paying dues, taking partin the work of a party branch, implement the decision The analysis of internal imposing their own choice onregional partylistparty (Reuter candidates and Remington 2008). rules of United lists by upcandidate the leadersdrawing of into process intervene party For instance,central Russia shows thathaving the key in role making (All-Russiandecision process Political“United Party Russia”). members of the party Supreme party upon and Council of strategy the its thus decides the development policies, are Supreme Council and its chairman Party (All-Russian Political “United The Russia”). by beintroduced Political“Unitedof the suggestion the Party can This position Russia”). Party is the ChairmanAccording to theof amendedthe Part’s party isArticle strictly by regulated Kremlin”the (2008,9). 7 Supremeof the Charter the within and evendiscussion istolerated, factionalism or internal“no dissent organization: Council of United Russia,at and centralizes of with party a highly disciplined for the establishment primary reason the the same Chairman moment them from time”According Gel’man (2008,9). to time ‘external this to governance’ was the of the (All-Russian sectoral holding company, hired its which management andpersonnel and couldeasy replace organization with “a firm whose assets are owned not by its management but by a large multi- Gel’man2008). inhis analysis of organization party of RussiaUnited compares the party (Gel’man decision-making strategic controlled officials Kremlin and management routing was to such extent that evenformed by“Kremlin-base ‘external (Gel’man governance’” 2006, 553).‘External governance’ party leaders and officials were merely in charge of everyday 42 CEU eTD Collection Party of life. The formation of Just Russia was perceived by experts as Kremlin intention as Kremlin by experts perceived was Just Russia of formation life. The Party of merger of the three satelliteUnitedin Russia a system 2008).The two-party party (Gel’man by was established the parties – the Motherland party, the Party of Pensioners havebodies influence process. no ondecision-making and the majorAgain,like inUnited members Russianparties Russia regional (Hutcheson 2003). and its other with opinions to the memberscomparing least receptive of level, LDPR the were the According to the study of the members’ engagementinto their party organization on local Russia”). of Party “Liberal-Democratic Party (Political itself Congress the gather when to inpower making isinhand Supremethe whichdecision process of evendecides Council Although, highest the governing body according toparty’s is Charter National mostCongress, implementare strictly any to from obliged goingdirectly decisions Zhirinovsky (Hale2007). submit activity and to centrallocal Furthermore, bodyto the branches 2007). (Hale governing (Hale 2007).Forinstance,local branches are requiredfill to detailed forms reporting their is basis up on the local branch The structure of discipline set party 2007).of (Hale tough charismatic politician based is inextraordinary on caseof LDPRhierarchy is that difference of Russia.The United Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the of structure resembles party ingovernance LDPR.The hierarchical insignificant structure has unlimitedalso is process making powerin decision members and branches local and party’s of role The control over the (White 2007). lowstrategy on influence and program on influence party and little process decision-making arguethat In general, members party’sthe Political Russia”).have very “United experts Party joinin fraction party the with (All-Russian instructions and act party’s the accordance must and behalf party’s onthe campaigns in elections part taking for party are responsible the Just Russia declared itself as a leftist party with the aim to be a counter balance to be acounter aim the to party with leftist itself asa Russia declared Just 43 CEU eTD Collection centralism’ ‘organizationin or organization the with continuities divisions of discipline’ Gel’manWhite2002, The organization 2008,S. is 2007). basedstructure on‘democratic formed on the basis of the rules of its predecessor CommunistIn theParty of caseSoviet Union of (MarchCPRF, the rules of the satellite party of Kremlin 2008). party(Gel’man organization and is thisthat decision a Russia, out inJust pointing perceive decision-makingprocess decentralized the making process were for ordinary members impact to on decision-making process. Nevertheless, skeptically experts in LDPR moreopportunities instance, giving for and than, bemore decentralized perceived to process decision-making theparty structure complicated a despite Therefore, Russia”). “Just Party bodies (Political for party governing the inelections andcan beelected participate realization party of and (Political “Just Russia”).programs policies Any Party memberparty for they are responsible Furthermore, andpolicies. charters programs, party’s of elaboration working bodies of party the (Political Party “JustTheseRussia”). councilsinvolved are inthe becollective to areconsidered theCouncils Charter, the to issues. According different the Bureau of Presidiumincluding the Besides,12 party leaders. party has 12 Councils Party on also is there Furthermore, leaders. party 40 includes which Council Central of Presidium the by led is Council Central the However, Congress. National by elected branches different For instance, party the body isgoverning theCentral membersCouncil 200 with from has amore complex structure. and decentralized JustRussiathat hasnosostrict hierarchical as structure United Russia LDPR.Just and Russia shows documents other and Charter party’s the of analysis Nevertheless, LDPR. and Russia of resemble United satellitethisandorganization structure should to logic party according ‘managed’ two-party system (Gel’man Therefore,2008, 923). JustRussia is considered asa towards establishmentthe leg’‘left of whileparty, Untiedbeleg’ would Russia ‘right ina 44 CEU eTD Collection (Political Party “Communist Party of the Russian Federation”). leadership party the elects Central butCommittee leader, the directly party elect cannot members Also, Federation”). of Russian the Party “Communist (Political are prohibited Party of those above and them party strict discipline byallbranches, any fractions thewithin parties any carry decisions out to bodies lower party of obligations the set rules party’s the coherent party tomakeof structure organizational the White order 2007).In cohesion (March 2002, S. and organizational a party structural with as considered is CPRF Nevertheless, traditionally 2003). (Hutcheson process making discussion decision party of into contribute members to encouraged their the Communist Party was the accordinginto the study members’ their to engagementof localorganization party level, on most open to internal Furthermore, Federation”). of Russian the Party debate“Communist Party (Political each election and the party that in be replaced should mostbodies elected lessall nota fifth of than says that rule The White 2007). directly (S. elections party in be observed to which renewal’ ‘constant of rule is the process making involve more memberstoindecision provides placefor important featurethat Another Russian Federation”). have them considered thatin theit also taking provides of thea decisionright says of party the Charter the Furthermore, Federation”). Russian of the Party “Communist of criticism, (Political Party and(Political issues rightsinternal concerning process Party making for decision in the branches minoritylocal “Communist to present theirParty views of in making decision bodies and process of governing independenceand of regional structures, theand bodiesgoverning andits personal before party’sand nature members,collective transparence all of accountability ‘bottom-up’, of principle the on bodies governing all of election labour and leadership (March2002,133).The principle of‘democratic centralism’ means: 45 CEU eTD Collection level the research conducted by placelevel between andconducted research the party (2003) the Hutcheson LDPR CPRF. Party in‘YABLOKO’). engagement themembership Regarding business party local on the to the rights and dutiesnot butdo obliged memberssupport thehas party Besides who ordinary ‘supporters’ Yabloko of formal membership ‘YABLOKO’). Party Democratic “Russian United Party (Political would decide conflicts (Political Party ‘YABLOKO’). Also, party the Arbitragehas Party which incase internal of any and disputes “Russian United Democratic in making part “Russian (Political Democraticdecision process Party United Party without pre-electionmadebe decision cannot any important structure In this complex ‘YABLOKO’). Party in National Congress Democratic United “Russian Party (Political theParty Bureau of and representatives) regional giving opportunity governing body, Political Committee, Federal Council members (60-70 with majority toof members to take an The governing activeisstructure of Yabloko complex of consisting National Congress as highestthe Party” (D.White 2006,151). members abouttheirand opinions discuss too hispolitical ideasmembers with other of the Yavlinkii’s ask its Today Yabloko opinion opinion has was the Mr. Yavlinkii Yabloko. of to leader Gregorii Yavlinskii,but asthe party developed hiscontrol “previously declined: full like party Furthermore, White charismatic control inLDPR,the was underits of 2006). boost nationwidemembership (D. andto its strengthen and organization regional develop legislation by newto forced was then party the Nevertheless, (D.White 2006). resources party the andwas justifiedby organizational lackof lowlevel the structures regional of of structure The centralized Party ‘YABLOKO’). Democratic “Russian United Party (Political vote all-party is a preliminary leader there of party choice the before although election, of nature leader’s and of indirect higher-level the decisions binding character party the the party has instance, the LDPR. For with principles organizational shares some Yabloko 46 CEU eTD Collection plan” but majorplan” but position issuesparty of on remain policy different unclear (Gel’man 2008). from its since programs andmanifestos topolitical they present support and“Putin’s regime makeitisGel’manAccording judgment ideology (2008), to difficultprinciples party’s on to party’s genesis with a ‘top-down’ party building andparty re-building (Stykow 2007). process ideology (Gel’man 2008, Hutcheson 2005b, Hale2007).The lack of ideology is explained by under thestudy on parties left-wing with andideology. right-wing classify parties inRussiaweneedto of campaigning of parties’factor professionalization RommeleKavanagh 2001, In 1995, Scammell toseeif 1995). order ideology is aninternal ideology may impeded theadaptationwhich ‘business-type’ of and techniques (Gibson campaigning andleft-wingparties partiesor with socialistless are agendas adaptive duetothe isThe argument ideology thatpartieswing with right to professional can easier adapt ideology is a for‘priming’ factor adaptation of professional campaignspolitical by parties. 3.3 Ideology ofparties moreleadership, system of accountable with makingand collective nature decision process. depend on not do bodies governing parties where other among party least centralized making as areconsidered parties These asfairlydecision CPRFlooked process. centralized. structure butwith more possibilitieslocal for branches and members to take active partin with hierarchical JustRussiaa strong structure. andYablokoalso have centralized internal be highly centralized areconsidered to United RussiaandLDPR Gel’man (2008)andothers. S. byWhite White and studies D. (2003), conducted extensive (2007), (2006), Hutcheson based of Charters qualitative structure from findings internal theiron parties’ organizational United Russia as a ‘party of power’ is classified by some experts as a party with no In theory party-centered the Gibson andRommele (2001)arguethat right-wing All in all, it is possible to classify parties under the study on the level of centralization 47 CEU eTD Collection 2002, Gel’man 2004, S. White 2007). (March dichotomy ideological on party left-wing a as referred is Russia of Party Communist itskeep coherence and party unity of organization 2008). Generally,(Gel’man the ithelps Leninism’sto to politics attachment party 2003).This 1990s (March 2002, Volokhov The appeal party’s voter,likeinto USSR’ ‘back and its policy positions still asin remains the strong commitmentin its ideological values and principles Leninism towards (March 2002). andideology, right-wing LDPRis considered as the right-wing. set up strictif left-wing Kremlin dichotomy time on 2008).However, to loyal (Gel’man to combinetimebeingmanagesnationalist to theparty and both same rhetoric, populist atthe same the At 2005b). (Hutcheson nationalism and imperialism rather but liberalism, advocate Furthermore, LDPR’snameMunromisleading2002). is asLDPR not does considered andparty 2005b,by 2008,Hutcheson Rose also usedassatellite (Gel’man Kremlin party fake liberal as a LDPR consider experts some Nevertheless, program. its official to according party left-wingthan party (Gel’man 2008). left-centre more considered is it policies Putin’s supports fully party, satellite a as Russia, extensive socialist (Gel’manNevertheless, rhetoric 2008). account thatJust into taking to be party theright-centre party Russia while 2007). as left-centre Just (Stykow (Gel’manNevertheless, 2008, 921). in a ‘managed’ party system United Russiais considered issue parties”,between axis pro-statist well dimension for and any other of as pro-market as zeropointcontinuum the on left-right “nearthe Gel’man locates to (2008)United Russia The strategy of non-ideology gives to United Russia room for political maneuvers. According Despite some moves ‘rightwards’ in the course of its development, CPRF continues its CPRFcontinues its of course in development, ‘rightwards’ the moves some Despite Liberal a Democratic Party Russia is of party considered ideology with right-wing Afterformation Just its Russia announced aleftist policy and position employed 48 CEU eTD Collection wing right-centrist or ***Measured by variable 0=left-wing dichotomous the with left-centrist or and 1 =right- in branches local process decision-making and members of involvement significant with centralized least 0 as and centralized is**The measurement 1fairlymeans basedon scalewhere2 highlythe structure, centralized by *Measured incomeoverall in party 2007 ideology*** wing Right structure** internal hierarchical and Centralized resources* party of level High Table 5Primingvariablesofparty-centered theory parties. of sample is variance wecan thesethere evenamongApplying this small findings asignificant see that campaigns Dumaof Russian parties in forState election ofRussian in Federation 2007. 3.4 Discussion of thefindings dichotomy. party in isWhite Russia 2006).Thus,(D. ideological party right-wing the placed as onthe Furthermore,2008). Yabloko is perceivedif as,the major, not only,the opposition democratic (Gel’man campaigns political its of in some rhetoric leftist used it although party, liberal main White1998, GolosovLowenhardt 2006,Gel’man is2008, 2004).The as considered party the Table 5 presents summarized information summarizedTable 5 forprofessionalized on information presents priming variables (D. scholars many by orientation ideological its in right-wing a as seen is Yabloko 2, 094,288, 660 ntdR si Just United Russia Russia 1 2 564, 506,913 0 1 49 547, 230,901 LDPR 1 2 6,11 0 189, 189, 462, 403 111, 808 CPRF 0 0 Yabloko 1 1 CEU eTD Collection presented in Chapter 1 (Norris 2000, Farrel and Webb 2000, Mair et al. 1999), parties with parties et al. 1999), Webb 2000,Mair and Farrel 1(Norris2000, presented inChapter the theories to According making process. of structure decision hierarchical and strict campaigning. in professionalized involvement of level the showing index CAMPROF inthe score last the got list), the in second is (which Russia the highest amount of financial resources, which is about four times larger of resources of Just financial significant Nevertheless, (Farrel having and Web2000). United Russia,resources intensive campaigning,of campaigning,asacapital requires Professional resources. campaigning. Russia United is significantly ahead of all partiesother in of terms availability in United index CAMPROF Russiathe have thebestscore professionalized that of would structure. hierarchical strict require which campaigns professionalized to impediment an also be can which sample, inthe party iscentralized theparty campaigns. seen Furthermore, as theleast “door-to-door” conducted which activists volunteer and members of number significant its on relied primary CPRF and (Colton McFaul 2003). the party that CPRF’s election campaigns should be labor intensive, low-cost and low-tech 1995, Farrel is and Webb 2000, Scammel 1995). There afaith amongmembers official of and (Kavanagh expertise external of buying the and technologies marketing of application the to particularly campaigning, of professionalization to impediment an be can ideology leftist the Communist Party of Soviet Union, despiteprofessionalized campaigning andRommele (Gibson The CPRF, 2001). asapredecessor of some changes, retains its leftist ideology. The Furthermore, United Russia is classified as party the with centralized internal structure is it of variables expected Russia internal If United findingspriming analyze on the we Also, party the campaigningspent on less than United Russia,LDPR JustRussia. and of theory party-centered the support that case the seems CPRF The caseof 50 CEU eTD Collection However, the case of United Russia seems to be confronting to the theory of party-centered theory the be to confronting seems to Russia of United case the However, Cases of RussiaLDPR,also and Yabloko Just conformedlimited theory,the to butto extent. variables low forlevel the campaigning showedby professionalized of CAMPROF index.the explanatory the be may structure internal decentralized and resources financial of level low factors ideology,left-wing of Theinternal party – the priming campaigning. professionalized the sample, but it did notimpede the professionalization of political campaign. lowest party the budgetamongleader.had the charismatic parties other the Nevertheless, of party useprofessional to Also,iscampaigning. party fairly considered centralized having above, Yabloko is the right-wing party. Therefore, the ideology cannot be impediment for the professional campaigning dimensions. of used some actively party the Nevertheless, campaigning. of adaptation professional futher for impediments be the might organization internal centralized strictly not and ideology Russia of Just case In professionalization. score wellin index of campaign to the expected andparty was Thus, the party. itself announce asliberal democratic Also LDPRofficially of makingdecision process. hierarchical structure with LDPR havecentralized organization utilize levelhigh which professional campaign techniques. to enabled them resources of adaptation of professional campaigns. same with ideology, UnitedRussia despite beingadapt didprofessionalnot centralized campaigning tofull The extent. Russia is not a left-wing campaigns, structural as some However,requires professionalization changes. United again party which can be an impediment are more structure internal easily and organization professional hierarchical ‘top-down’ adapt to All in all, the case of CPRF fully conformed to the theory of party-centered tothe of theory fullyconformed CPRF caseof All inall, the Surprisingly, Yabloko has in highestscore the CAMPROFindex.the Aswas mentioned LDPR and Just Russia scored relatively well in the CAMPROF index. Both parties have 51 CEU eTD Collection regional,local, primary and branches and (Reuter Remington 2008). The availability such of million overmass 53.000 1.5 with has over membership The aself-reported 2007). party The capital. (Hale structures party anditsregional national expand anddeepen quickly party to worked organizational-administrative significant own its has Russia United all, of First Hutcheson 2009,Gel’man 2008,Reuter and Remington 2008). in 2007, campaign (Hale election its administrative capital enjoyed unprecedented power” There are anumber of claimingthatUnitedstudies Russiaparty” as“dominant“party or of haveyears electoral 2009,341). appear to success in (Hutcheson becometo crucial recent which can be manyof forms. In Russian ‘managed democracy’, administrative resources 337). (2009, process” resourcestoinfluencethe electoral offices or abuseofstate sometimes as“the useand resources and administrative capital administrative Hutcheson 2007). defined (Hale campaigning in their important, more is what and organization party intheir capital administrative on rely primarily that parties clientelistic as seen are parties Russian Most al.46-9). candidates”(Kitschelt party’s the et 1999, individualssupport whodemonstrably assets facilitating the provision of direct selective materialprofessional campaigning. or symbolic advantages arenotinterestingin resources administrative parties whichhave developing significant to those primingthe variable for explanation the low of level campaign.of professionalized Thus, 3.5 Alternative variable: administrative capital and resources variable whichcan impact thelevel of professionalized campaigning by parties. professionalized campaigning. final In the part of Iwill chapter, this alternative present In Russia administrative capital mainly took the form of ‘administrative resources’, form ‘administrative the took of mainly capital administrative In Russia Administrative capital was first defined by Kitschelt as “a sort of capital as a stock of canbe resources) administrative (or administrative capital that research argues Present 52 CEU eTD Collection lists, rejected rejected lists, their andwerereplacedby places party 2009). members (Hutcheson other leading sixty-four andthecandidates of on eighty-threeregional including party’s the Putin in wonby 104deputies, seats fullresource 2007.Outof United Russia extent315 to elections of administrative form this Russiaused United elections. the after seat the andreject then its listof top forat the aparty run politicians whenfamous candidates”, “locomotive called costing their party seats without refuselegislation Remington inRussia candidates seats 2008). Electoral to allows in the parliament (Hutchesonbeing Duma and Federation evenwithout aparty memberelections State (Reuter of Russian 2007). Therefore, torunat partiesinstance,of Putin chose top partylistof For the Vladimir in United Russia the can use so- 2009). incumbents provided organizational for support campaignsthe onlocal level (Hutcheson and directMoreover,financial the support to them candidacies other (Hale andto 2007). official The 2008). andmembers Remington (Reuter headed byparty were regional administrations representatives2007 United Russia controlled amajority in seats of all legislatures, andregional 78of 83 of the marketingtechniques (Yanbuhtin campaign 2007, Buzin 2007). party inallows Unitedsuccessful Russiatoconduct without usageof campaigns professional and the provinces (All-Russian“United Political Party Russia”).Availability such of organizational resources 140 about 000 000 million Russian roubles4 more whichisalmost times than spent Yabloko helpedinstance,level. For for campaign the in 2007 the party spent on publishing agitation materials to coordinate campaignsto-door” forms and other by of agitation members local andparty on supporters allows conductsuccessful party resources “door- to developed organizational-administrative its district Also, the association with popular incumbents can be used to advantage the campaign. the advantage to be used can incumbents popular with association the Also, Another form isof administrative support support of the incumbency.instance,in For 53 CEU eTD Collection capital capital is not interested in developing ofits professional campaigning. professionalized campaigning since by havingUnited Russia, party the such administrative whichsuccess resources ofin great mayprovide elections lowlevelexplain the of administrative and capital administrative of use the Thus, 2007. in campaign resources in election 2007. Atthesame time, party the used unprecedented level administrative of very limited used for to extent professionalizedtechniques professional campaigning factors elections of finding2007. Also,the show that United Russiadespite having all priming Duma by Federation in Russia wereactively United of Russian the used State resources these that show findings the campaign, election of success on resources capital/administrative to any party inother channelsthese (Hutcheson 2009). more4% wasdevoted no that while Channel, of TV-Centre on coverage channel and 32.2% programs. The party hasreceived Firstthe Channel, 19.2%on %onthe“Russia” 20.2 news in large the state disproportionately coverage got shown monitoring Russia United has United 2009).As 2007,Hutcheson Russiacoveragecampaign to 2007 (Hale inelection favorable gave media municipally of anumber and networks television major three All media. All in all, although it is almost impossible to measure the impact of administrative of impact the measure to impossible almost is it although all, in All The next form of effective administrative resources is the state and municipally owned 54 CEU eTD Collection predetermine the professionalization of of professionalization the campaigning. predetermine The theory Rommele is there 2001).arguedthat factors that internal priming party and (Gibson professionalized campaigning theory of party-centered the was between parties only explain theory which to tried in thelevel the variety of campaigning professionalized make it possible to explain the frameworkvariety which will enable the study of professionalbetween campaigns by Russian parties and the parties. set uptheoretical The theories numerous to inpolitical Itried trends campaigning. Basedon these research concluded that the modern in researched which of fieldsof andstudies the studies communication party political cases. in certain campaigning professionalized of levelmay the low adaptation of explain resources capital/administrative high administrative in issome anadditionalthat variable cases. research also proposed availability of which The can level high explain thelow professional or campaign of butonly of adaptation techniques, by theory for professionalizedproposed factors internal campaigning party-centered priming that showed research the Furthermore, parties. among campaigning of professionalization levels of is variety findingsthe between there However,thesignificant showedthat 2009). of some scholars about professionalizationthe politicalof campaigningin Russia (Hutcheson define the campaignas limited butto whichprofessionalized, extent the arguments confronted inelection which argued thatin used some political parties theircampaigns activities 2007 The research level professional the campaigns. predetermine to parties’political adaptation of if internal factors of priming parties asideology, internal and structure financial resource campaigning Dumaof in theState parties of FederationinRussian 2007,andthentoanalyze In the first part of the research I presented numerous theories and hypothesis elaborated hypothesis and theories numerous presented I research the of part first the In The purpose of the present research was to measure the professionalization of political of professionalization the measure wasto research of present the The purpose Conclusion 55 CEU eTD Collection ideology itideology would adaptprofessionalized campaigning. centralized high structure, and hierarchicalinternal level financial andof right-wing resources Whitepartieswas 2008,Hale assumed (S. if2007). It bythetheory has that party the party in the Russian system of party is vote-maximization according to the theories of Russian goal as vote-maximization was not studied. Since, it was assumed that the primary goal in any resources and ideology. The fourth variable proposed by the theory which is the party primary financial of level structure, internal campaigning: professionalized of theory centered ‘dominant’ party veryUnited Russia got low in score professionalized campaigning. CAMPROFindex varietyshowed the in scored by results Surprisingly,parties. the the Nevertheless, materials. agitation and advertisement TV, on relied mainly Russia in parties that Theanalysis proved consultants. political some extent, and,to newsletters subscription email polls, opinion like campaigning professional of dimensions some in elections 2007waslow. The findingsparties demonstrated that were extensively using only parties. butalsoto see between levelof disparity general the campaigning professionalization of look atthe not index only enabled professional campaigning. TheCAMPROF research to the key which as party’s activities are definedbythetheoreticaldimensions framework of 2007theelections research and theCAMPROFadapted used index.The index is basedon 10 measuringincampaigningby For campaigning Russian of parties. the professionalization setup and to methodological measure the which tool the level would professionalized of The next step in research was to study the independent variables proposed by proposed invariables party- tostudy The nextstep independent the research was The findings showed thatthe general level professionalizedof campaigningby parties The next stepin research was tooperationalize the concept of professional campaigning 56 CEU eTD Collection parties’ professionalized campaigning. In some cases the disparity In in campaigning. someof casesthedisparity parties’ thelevel professionalized parties’ of extent the in disparity the explain to be enough not may ideology and decision-making of structure party resources, – highlevelof campaigning professionalized theory centered of campaigning. adapt not need toprofessional capital to does of party which hasadvantage administrative a as campaigning professionalized of level low the influence may capital administrative high research andbased itfindings receivedis on claim possible availability to that of deductively in2007.Based what in Federation mainbody was Russian on elections discussed the of Duma of for State inits campaigning resources usedadministrative and capital administrative of highlevel possessed Russia thatUnited findings showed The resources. administrative index which was close to CPRF. CAMPROF inthe score low very received ideology right-wing and resources of level highest the process, of Russia havingthemost andhierarchical centralized decision-making structure Untied theory. party-centered the confronted completely Russia United of case the But extent. in score campaigning. professionalized with parties. The CAMPROFother theory the indexsupported lowestas the the party got and modestideology,structure decentralized internal level comparingfinancial of resources professionalization campaigning by of party.the CPRF was defined as aparty left-wing with impede which could factors had all contra Theparty CPRF. caseof the theory the was professionalizedis campaigning true inonly some cases. The clearexample whichsupported The findings of the research show that the internal factors of parties proposed by party- of proposed factors parties internal the showthat research the of The findings and capital is which variable administrative additional the researchstudied Then, the limited the theory andRussia supported only cases to Yabloko Just However,of LDPR, of theory party-centered the that showed analysis of results the Nevertheless, 57 CEU eTD Collection modernization, institutionalmodernization, andlegislationenvironment on elections and parties. societal culture, political national in Russia: campaigning political of professionalization need for further research a is alsodefinitely There professionalization. of the level whichcan explain factors, party which will study further research would find and more possibly variables, analyze independent i.e. internal the influence of of all, widerFirst issue. this on researches for further aneed is also There resources. administrative systematic factors capital and huge having administrative partieswhere areparties or there ‘dominant’ on the the researchof The ofRussian in argument organization and politics parties. of Russia, as studies aswell may also be used in the studies organization and politics. of other also of variables internal new party studies as additional would lighton shed process of party post-Sovietbut communication, political of only not theories the enlarge will which factors additional countriesexplainpredetermine or of the developmentprofessional, find help campaigning, will to out which which instudy internal modernthe campaigningandlooking trends factors, political at party have professionalized campaigningrequires additional variables dependingThe on context. the The findings of The findings may be of further research the for studies used campaigningof in political 58 CEU eTD Collection Chernyshov, A.G. Buzin,A and LybarevA. E.2008. Buzin,A. 2007. Blumler, J.G., Kavanagh D. and Nossiter T.J. 1996. Modern communications versus Evgen’eva, T.V. 2007. Evgen’eva, T.V. in Transition, in Post-Communism Politics Party 2006. Zsolt. Eneydi, Borisov I. and Zaslavskii S. 2007. ------2006. Political Parties in Changing Campaign Environment,in Farrel, Strategies andTactics” in 1996.Campaign David. ed.2004. Barbara Pfetsch Esser, Frank and Colton, Timothy J. and Michael McFaul. 2003. Fil’,Mariya. 2008. Farrel, David andWebb, Paul. 2000.Political Parties as Organizations,Campaign in Duverger,Maurice. 1964. Gel’man, Vladimir. 2006. From “Freckless Pluralism” to “Dominant Power Politics”. The Politics”. Power “Dominant to Pluralism” “Freckless From 2006. Vladimir. Gel’man, Gel’man, Vladimir.Party 2008. Politics in Russia:From Competition Hierarchy.to election technologies and how election technologiesandhow to struggle againstthem) Consequences Modern Democracy: InternationalStudyin An Electoral CampaigningandTheir traditional inpolitics Britain: unstable marriage of convenience, in “Panorama” elections2007-2008). technologies infederal vyborov 2007-2008godov federal’nyh Politics Russia) Party Politics, LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris Thousand, 160-184. Oaks, CA: Sage Cases, andChallenges (Technologies ofsocialmanipulation and methods against them) state Russian elections of1999and 2000 Dalton Dalton and Martin Wattenberg, Oxford: 102-129. Oxford University Press withoutPartisans: PoliticalChangein Advanced IndustrialDemocracies, Transformation of Russia’s Party System. klientami: sovremenye vyzovy i metody Moscow, 21.03.2008razvitiya”, election agitation) a toolof Asia Studies . London: Methuen . Moscow: Globulus , ed. R. Katz and W. Crotty, 228-239. SAGE Publications Ltd Administrativnye izbiratel’nye tehnologii ibor’ba s nimi(Administrative , 60:6,913 - 930 Vibory vRossii–vybordlya Rossii (ElectionsinRussia –elections for Sotsial’nie seti kak instrument predvybornoi agitatsii (Social as networks instrumentpredvybornoiagitatsii seti kak Sotsial’nie , ed. Swanson D. and Mancini P, 49-73.Praeger, London ed. R. Katz and W. Crotty, 122-134. SAGE Publications Ltd Tehnologii sotsial’nyh manipulyatsii imetody protivodeystviya im Political parties: theirorganization andactivityin the modern . Cambridge University . Cambridge University Press Partii na Prestuplenie beznakazaniya. Administrativnie tehnologii . Paper presented at the Conference “Otnosheniya s “Otnosheniya Conference atthe . Paperpresented References: . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution vyborah (Crime without punishment. Administrative Comparing PoliticalCommunication: Theories, 59 Popular choiceandmanageddemocracy: the Democratization Moscow: CPK “Nikkolo M”, Centre ( Parties onelections). Comparing Democracies,Comparing . Moscow: Centre “Panorama” , 13, 4, pp. 545-61 . St. Petersburg: Piter Politics, and Media Handbook of PartyHandbook of Moscow: Evropa Handbook of ed. Russel Europe- ed. L. ed. Parties CEU eTD Collection Hanov, 2007. Gai. Jonson. Dennis ed. 2009. Janda, Kenneth. 1980. ------2009. Russia: Electoral Campaigning ina“Managedin Democracy”, Hale,2007. E. Henry Golosov, Grigorii. 1998. Party Organization, Ideological Change, and Electoral Success. A A Party- Communications: Campaign Changing 2001. Rommele. Andrea and Rachel Gibson, Karpenko, O.M. 2008.Karpenko, O.M. ------2005b. Political Parties in Russia, in ------2005a. How toWin Elections and Influence People: The Development of Holtz-Bacha,Communication: Christina. 2004.Political Campaign Conditional Convergence the Thecaseof communication: of political Professionalization 2002. Christina. Holtz-Bacha, Golosov, Grigorii. 2004. Gibson, Rachel and Andrea Rommele. 2009. Measuring the Professionalization of Political Hutcheson, Derek. 2003. Derek. Hutcheson, Cambridge University Press Handbook ofPoliticalManagement, and London Group, Francis 495-501 Bogdan Szajkowski,London: John 495-501. HarperPublishing, 6 http://www.publicity/ru/upravlenie/articles/847.html legislation)parties changes andelections inparty after partiinogo i directionsizbiratel’nogozakonodatel’stva political (New ofconsultingfor Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/publications/workingpapers/WPS/258.pdf Comparative Study Postauthoritarian of Parties. Working Paper#258,September 1998, Press/Politics Centered Theory Campaigning. Professionalized of Moscow: SGU Moscow: political partiesinRussia) Rossii (Comparativeof of programdocuments analysis Group, London Political in Consulting Post-Communist Russia. in MediaElections of Modern campaign.1998 SPD April 15, 2009) Campaigning. RoutledgeCurzon and Challenges, Novie politicheskih konsaltinga napravleniya s partii vsvyazi izmeneniem , Vol. 6,No.4, 31-44 Party Politics ed. F. Esser and B. Pfetsch, 213-231. Cambridge University Press Political Parties: ACross-National Survey Why Democracy, andthestate not partiesinRussia?: federalism, Sravnitel’nyi analizprogrammnyh dokumentov politicheskih partii Political Parties in theRegions of Russia:Democracy Unclaimed Handbook of PoliticalManagement Political Parties in theRussian Regions Journal ofPoliticalMarketing 2009; 15; 265 Comparing Communication: Theories, Political Cases, ed. Dennis W. Jonson, 332-346. Routledge: TaylorW. Jonson,332-346.Routledge: ed.Dennis 60 Journal ofPoliticalMarketing , 1(4):23-37 Political Parties in theWorld, May (Accessed 2, 2009) Harvard InternationalJournalof . Routledge: Taylor and Francis and Taylor Routledge: . . The Free Press: New York . London and New York: . Publicity Media. . Publicity th edition edition 2005. pp. (Accessed on . Vol.5 ed. . . . CEU eTD Collection Kitschelt, Zdenka Herbert, 1999. Mansfeldova, Markowki, Radoslaw Toka. Gabor and Kirchheimer,1966. The Otto. transformation West European party inof systems, Kynev, Alexander.vyborov politicheskih 2004.Rynok tehnologii Gosdumy posle 2003 goda Kertman, G.L. 2007. Status partii v rossiikoi politicheskoi kul’ture (Status (Status in of politicheskoi partiiv kul’ture parties Kertman,rossiikoi 2007.Status G.L. Amateurs? for Place No Marketing: and Political Democracy Party 2003. Kavanagh, Dennis. Krainov, 2008.Izbiratel’nye G.N. vyborov – 2007(Election tehnologii technologies in 2004. Komarovsky, V.S. Kavanagh, Dennis. 1995. Malkin, B.andSuchkov 2003. E. E.B. WolfgangMair,ed. 1999. Plasser C.MullerandFritz Peter, What is 1997. Mair,post-communist differentaboutsystems? party Peter. In Lowenhardt, John.Lowenhardt, 1998. Katz, Richard and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Lilleker, Darren Darren What?G. andRalph Lilleker, Of When? Professionalization: Since By Negrine. 2002. Katz, Richard and Peter Mair ed. 1992. Katz, Richard and RobinKolodny. 1994.Party Organization as an Vessel: Parties in Empty 200. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Parties andPoliticalDevelopment, http://www.igpi.ru/info/people/kynev/polit_market.html for January Political and6, 2004. Humanities Studies. market(The of political after Parliamentary the technologies 2003).Institute elections Russian political Russian political culture). Mainz, 2003 at October 30-31 in World Global the aconferenceCommunications on was presentedto Political Paper Communist Party Systems naukoemkie tehnologii election RussianAcademy ScienceScience. 2007). “ of Journal Izdatel’stvo RAGS Izdatel’stvo programs(Political inRussia andCharters) analysis parties nowadays: of of Voter Loyalties in Western Europe 175-199 Change. Approaches and Interpretations Panorama. elections technologies andparty-building) of (Fundamentals Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Cartel Party”. of the Emergence The Democracy: Whom? in Politics American Sage Harvard InternationalJournal ofPress/Politics Party Politics inPost-Communist Russia Election Campaigning Sovremennye How Parties Organize, Parties How ”. No. 2, ”. No. 2008 . New York: . NewYork: Cambridge University Press Polis no.1: 120-31 Party Organizations: ADataHandook politicheskie partii analizprogramiustavov Rossii: politicheskie Osnovy izbiratel’nyh tehnologiiipartstroitel’stva ed. Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner,ed. JosephLaPalombara andMyron 177- . London: Sage 61 , ed. Peter Mair.Oxford:, ed. Clarendon pp. Press, . Oxford: Blackwell. Oxford: ed. R. Katz and P. Mair, 23-51. London: R. Katzand Mair,23-51. P. ed. Party Poltics (AccessedApril 25, 2009) 7:98-103 Party Responses totheErosion . Taylor and Francis . 1:5-28 . Moscow:Ruskyaya . London: Sage Party System Sovremennye . Moscow: Political Post- CEU eTD Collection Scammell, Margaret. 1999. Political marketing: lessons from political science. political from lessons marketing: Political 1999. Margaret. Scammell, and Campaigning U.S. The Wisdom WarRoom: the of 1997. Scammell,Margaret. Scammell, Margaret. 1995. Scammell,Margaret. Sanaev, A.2005. Rose, Richard and 2002. Neil Munro. Reuter, O.J andReuter, RemingtonT.2008.DominantParty Regimes Problem:and Commitment the Popov, S. A. 2003. S. Popov, 2002. FritzPlasser, andGrunda Plasser. PanebiancoA. 1986. “O izmeneii “O vFederal’nyi vnesenii partii” politicheskih zakon to the Law (Amendment on Norris, Pippa. 2004.Theevolution of campaigns:election Eroding political engagement? “O politicheskih partiyah” (The Law on political parties). 2001. Sobranie zakonodate’stva Sobranie 2001. parties). political Law on (The partiyah” “Opoliticheskih Norris, Pippa. 2000. Nechaeva V.Ded.2007. Negrine, Ralph and S. Papathanassopoulos. 1996. The ‘Americanization’ of of Political 1996.The ‘Americanization’ Papathanassopoulos. and S. Negrine, Ralph Mihaleva, N.A. 2007. Michels, R.1962. March,L. 2002. Studies College Americanization. Research Paper, April 1997. President and Fellows of Harvard Martin’s Press Martin’s Moscow: Os’-89 Moscow: Vladimir Putin the Case of Caseof the United Russia. Omega-L Analysis ofCampaign Professionals andtheirPractices Russian Federation legislation). no. 52, art. 5272, 20 December, 2004 of (Collection Federatsii Rossiiskoi zakonodatel’stva Sobranie 2004. political parties). 11 July,in 2001(also Paper for the conference on Political Communication in the 21 in the Communication Political for conferenceon the Paper Rossiiskoi Federatssi (Collection of Russian Federation legislation Federation Russian of (Collection Federatssi Rossiiskoi success) College, University of Otago, New Zealand, January 2004 Communication: A Critique. Presidential elections in Russia) University Press University , vol.47,pp. 718-739 . Moscow: National Institute “High school of management” of school “High Institute National Moscow: . Political Parties Vybory vRossii: Kaketodelaetsya (Elections how in Russia: theydoit) The Communist Party in Post-Soviet RussiaThe CommunistPartyinPost-Soviet . Cambridge University Press A Virtuous Circle Virtuous A Political Parties Partii,demokratiya, vybory(Parties, elections) democracy, Parlamentskie Rossiiskaya gazeta Tehnologii politicheskogo uspeha (Technologies political of Designer Politics: How Elections Are Won Comparative Political Studies . Free Press Harvard International Journal ofPress/Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press . Moscow: SBU . NewYork: Cambridge University Press i prezidentskievybory vRossii(Parliamentary and Elections without Order. Russia’s Challenge to Global Political Campaigning:AWorldwide 62 14July 2001:5-7) . Westport, CT: Praeger , 8December, 2008 . Manchester: Manchester Manchester: . st Century, St Margaret’s ) , no. 29,art.2950, , . New York: St. . 1:45-62 . Moscow: Political . CEU eTD Collection Tihomirov, Dmitrii Boyarskii.and Aleksei 2007. Tehnologii poslednego sozyva Swanson, David and Paolo Mancini Mancini ed. 1996. Swanson, DavidandPaolo Sussmann, Gerald. 2005. Petra.Stykow, 2007.Russia Crossroads?the at The Realignment of Party the System. Smyth, Regina. 2006. All-Russian Political Party “United Russia” (contains party’s Charter, program program documents, Charter, party’s (contains “United Russia” Party All-Russian Political Tolstyh, 2007. P.A. Stromback,A Jesper.2007.Political Marketing Professionalized and Campaigning. A.Shlyapujnikov andA.2008. Elkin Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation (contains annual financial reports on reports financial annual (contains Federation Russian the of Commission Election Central used: resources Internet Zittel, and Thomas Thomas Gschwend. 2008.Individualized Constituency Campaigns in Yanbuhtin,2008. El’dar. Volokhov,A.E. 2003 Yanbuhtin, El’dar.2007. White, D.2006. White, Stephen. 2007. Wilson, Andrew.2005. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc-rss.aspx?DocsID=830902 (Technologies of last convocation). Journal “ Journal convocation). last of (Technologies Westport, CT:Praeger Westport, Corporate Financing (Accessed atApril 22, 2009) such parties! Guide-book for voters)such parties!Guide-bookfor Federation:without Democracy Foundation financial reports) – campaigns, election on reports internal organization, and structure on information March,April, May 2009) Analysis. Conceptual parties, financial reports financialparties, on election reports campaigns) – Russia) European Politics in Candidates Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: 2005 German Elections. (United Russia:Technologiesofsuccessful electioncampaign) Politics inNew Democracies historyCommunist of Party: 1990-20002) Democracy . Moscow:Al’pina Biznes Buks . Adershot, UK: Ashgate The Russian Democratic Yabloko: Party OppositioninaManaged GR: Praktikum po lobbizmu vRossiiwork (Practical in on lobbying . Noveishaya istoriya Kommunisticheskoi 1990-2002(Modern partii: Russia’s Client Party inPaulWebb System, andStephen White “Party , 31-5: , 31-5: 978-1003 Virtual Politics.New Haven Candidate Strategies and ElectoralCompetition in the Russian http://www.edinors.ru Tehnologiya Uspeha (Technologiesofsuccess) Global Electioneering. CampaignCommunications, Consulting, and . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Journal of Political Journal of Marketing Edinaya Rossiya. Tehnologiiuspeshnoiizbiratel’noy kampanii ”. Oxford University ”. Oxford University Press Est’ takiepartii! Putevoditel’ izbiratelya (There are . Moscow: Centre “Panorama” . Moscow: 63 (Accessed March, April, May 2009) . Moscow: Impeto . New York: Cambridge University Press Politics, Media and Modern Democracy Politics, andModern Media , CT: Yale University Press Den’gi 6(2-3): 49-67 http://www.cikrf.ru (AccessedApril at 18, 2009) ”, # 47 (653), 03.12.2007 47 (653), ”, # . Moscow: Vershina . Moscow: . Moscow: Vershina Moscow: . (Accessed West . CEU eTD Collection Political Party “Communist Party of the Russian Federation” (contains party’s Charter, party’s (contains Federation” Russian the of Party “Communist Party Political Political Party “Just Russia” (contains party’s Charter, program documents, information on Charter, party’s (contains ‘YABLOKO’” Party Democratic “Russian United Political Party program Charter, party’s Russia” (contains of Party “Liberal-Democratic Party Political election campaigns, financial reports) – reports) financial campaigns, election program documents, information on structure and internal organization, reports on http://www.spravedlivo.ru – financial reports) campaigns, election on andinternal reports organization, structure May 2009) election campaigns, financial reports) – program documents, information on structure and internal organization, reports on campaigns, financial – reports) and documents,on information structure election organization,on internal reports May 2009) (Accessed March, April,May 2009) http://www.ldpr.ru 64 http://www.yabloko.ru http://www.cprf.ru (Accessed March, April,2009) May (Accessed March, April, (Accessed March, April, (Accessed March,