DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian Federation – Yabloko – Treatment of Supporters – Tax Investigations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Russian Federation – Yabloko – Treatment of Supporters – Tax Investigations Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: RUS32923 Country: Russian Federation Date: 27 February 2008 Keywords: Russian Federation – Yabloko – Treatment of supporters – Tax investigations This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein. Questions 1. Please provide information on fate of Yabloko Party supporters from 2003 to present. 2. What are the procedures for investigating tax offences? Who are the investigators? Where are the people interviewed? 3. Where are the tax offices located in Moscow? 4. What are the summons and charge procedures for tax offences? 5. Is there a “black list” for people wanted for tax offences when departing Russia? RESPONSE 1. Please provide information on fate of Yabloko Party supporters from 2003 to present. Information on this question is provided under the following sub-headings: Information on the Yabloko Party Funding of the Yabloko Party Treatment of Yabloko supporters since 2003 Information on the Yabloko Party The Yabloko Party is a liberal democratic party in Russia. Although it is well established, Yabloko has been marginalised in Russian politics and has a relatively low level of support. It did not win any seats in the Duma elections held in December 2007. According to the Political Handbook of the World 2007 Yabloko (“Apple”) is formally known as the Russian Democratic Party “Yabloko” (Rossiiskaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya “Yabloko”). The party descended from the Yavlinsky-Boldyrev-Lukin Bloc, an electoral group formed in October 1993 by Grigori Yavlinsky, Yuri Boldyrev and Vladimir Lukin. The Chair of the party is Grigori Yavlinsky and the Deputy Chair, Alexei Arbatov. The party has lost most of its influence since Vladimir Putin became president in 2000 (Banks, Arthur S. et al. (eds) 2007, Political Handbook of the World 2007, CQ Press, Washington, pp.1027-1028 – Attachment 1; Nichol, Jim 2007, Russia’s December 2007 Legislative Election: Outcome and Implications, Congress Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, 10 December, p.2,4 http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22770.pdf – Accessed 11 February 2008 – Attachment 2; ‘Russia’s party barred from polls’ 2007, BBC News, 28 January http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6308511.stm – Accessed 8 February 2008 – Attachment 3; McFaul, Michael and Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn 2008, ‘The Myth of the Authoritarian Model: How Putin’s Crackdown Holds Russia Back’, Foreign Affairs, January/February http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105/michael-mcfaul-kathryn-stoner- weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html?mode=print – Accessed 8 February 2008 – Attachment 4). In the most recent Duma (lower legislative chamber) elections held on 2 December 2007 Yabloko received 1.59% of the vote and failed to win a seat. Petrov, from the Moscow Carnegie Center, stated that the liberal parties will forfeit the 60 million roubles deposit paid to get on the ballot and also pay for the air time provided by the state. As a result, according to Petrov, Yabloko is effectively bankrupt. Nichol, a Russian specialist at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), noted that the Russian NGO, Golos, assessed the elections as not being “free and fair”. Observers from the Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Nordic Council had stated that the election was more efficiently run than in the past but “‘there was not a level political playing field’” (Nichol, Jim 2007, Russia’s December 2007 Legislative Election: Outcome and Implications, Congress Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, 10 December, p.2,4 http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22770.pdf – Accessed 11 February 2008 – Attachment 2; ‘Official End Result of the Duma Elections (December 8, 2007)’ 2007, Russian Analytical Digest, No. 32, 14 December, p.10 – Attachment 5; Petrov, Nikolai 2007, ‘The Consequences of the State Duma Elections for Russia’s Electoral System’, Russian Analytical Digest, No.32, 14 December, p.6 – Attachment 6). Petrov also writes: One of the main results of the elections was a significant reconfiguration of the political party spectrum in Russia, representing a new approach of the Kremlin. Earlier the Kremlin worked with the completely loyal leaders of the democratic parties SPS [Union of Right Forces] and Yabloko, who still managed to preserve some independence. After these parties did not win representation in the 2003 Duma, the Kremlin decided that it would be easier to get by without them. To gain support on this side of the spectrum, the Kremlin was satisfied with the newly created Civic Force and the resurrected Democratic Party of Russia. Putin’s decision to lead the United Russia party list meant that many of the old parties lost their key constituents. Does the Russian political system even need parties? If they are needed, the results for SPS and Yabloko are not just an alarming warning, but evidence of the crash of the party system in the form that it existed since the beginning of the 1990s. This crash is the result of several causes. Among the objective causes are economic growth, and as a result, the increased well being of the citizens and their satisfaction with the authorities. During bad times, it was necessary to think of a new “party of power” before each election and the opposition parties always made advances. Now the situation has changed fundamentally. Another important cause is the Kremlin’s decision to exert greater control over the parties. The authorities have decided that it is easier to work with parties of their own creation, merging and dividing them according to whim, than it is to work with loyal politicians, who seek to maintain some autonomy. Another problem is the absence of a realistic role for political parties in the political system. The voters have a dim view of the parties and their leaders and therefore support for them is declining. If the parties don’t break out of this closed circle, it will be necessary to constantly think of new party projects, attractive because of their newness and not tied down by past promises, or to find effective showmen like Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Many professional politicians who were completely loyal to the Kremlin, and even capable of working with it, have now been excluded from the Duma and public life in general. If the regime does not want to work with some politicians, that is its business. However, if there is a constant dearth of qualified politicians in the system and it can’t find a place for dozens of qualified politicians, then this is a serious failure of the system itself. If the regime is about to adopt new reforms which will likely summon mass social protests onto the streets as a result, then forcing unwanted politicians out of the system is a serious mistake (Petrov, Nikolai 2007, ‘The Consequences of the State Duma Elections for Russia’s Electoral System’, Russian Analytical Digest, No.32, 14 December, pp.6-7 – Attachment 6). McFaul and Stoner-Weiss state that all independent parties, including Yabloko, are much weaker today and work in a more constrained political environment than in the 1990s. They also state that several candidates of independent parties were disqualified from participating in local elections for political reasons. Yabloko was banned from participating in the local elections held in St. Petersburg in March 2007 because, according to the city’s electoral commission, too many of the signatures supporting the party’s candidates were invalid (McFaul, Michael and Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn 2008, ‘The Myth of the Authoritarian Model: How Putin’s Crackdown Holds Russia Back’, Foreign Affairs, January/February http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105/michael-mcfaul-kathryn-stoner- weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html?mode=print – Accessed 8 February 2008 – Attachment 4; ‘Russia’s party barred from polls’ 2007, BBC News, 28 January http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6308511.stm – Accessed 8 February 2008 – Attachment 3). White, a lecturer in Russian politics at the University of Birmingham, in a 2007 article writes: Yabloko’s failure in the 2003 Duma election did not reflect a sudden rejection of the party’s social-liberal agenda by the Russian electorate. The party’s share of the vote had been in constant decline since the first post-Soviet parliamentary election in 1993. Nevertheless, despite its relatively low level of support over ten years, Yabloko is a well established political party. The party’s leader, Grigory Yavlinsky, who worked with both Gorbachev and Yeltsin and stood for the presidency in 1996 and 2000, enjoys a high profile both in Russia and the West. As an overtly democratic, liberal reformist party with a strong pro- Western orientation, the fact that Yabloko has become a marginal force in Russian politics should be of concern to those in Russia and the West who are interested both in the establishment of democratic norms and the relative strength of political forces promoting democratic and market reforms in Russia (White, David 2007, ‘Victims of a Managed Democracy? Explaining the Electoral Decline of the Yabloko Party’, Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 15, No. 2, Spring, p.210 pp.209-229 – Attachment 7). A July 2007 article in The Economist noted that the Yabloko party tends to stay within bounds set by the Kremlin (‘Putin versus nobody serious’ 2007, The Economist, 26 July http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9558338&CFID=56209 59&CFTOKEN=e53cac8edd541197-F6D0AE46-B27C-BB00-0143E0D8AD098CF7 – Accessed 8 February 2008 – Attachment 8).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights in Russia 2013
    APPROACHING THE 2014 SOCHI OLYMPICS: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S BRIEF HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA 2013 SUMMARY: As the 2014 Sochi Olympics approach, the space for human rights in the Russian Federation is rapidly shrinking. Since President Vladimir Putin’s return to office in May 2012 Russian authorities have intensified their assault on basic freedoms and undermined rule of law. New legislation restricts the operation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), criminalizes public actions “committed to insult the religious feelings of believers,” outlaws free expression and activism by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals and their supporters, and increases sanctions for peaceful protest. In the North Caucasus insecurity and volatility persist. Security operations launched in response are marred by systematic human rights violations with near-total impunity for the perpetrators. To see a comprehensive Amnesty International timeline of human rights abuses in Russia visit: http://www.amnestyusa.org/russia/ BRIEF: NGOs Under Attack In July 2012 President Putin signed a new law obligating NGOs receiving overseas funding and involved in undefined “political activities” to register as “foreign agents”. As a result of this legislation, leading human rights NGOs, including Memorial, For Human Rights and Amnesty International itself have been subjected to unplanned inspections resulting in prosecutorial “warnings” and court cases. This particular brand of harassment can result in self-censorship, restriction of activities, or even flight. The conflation of NGOs with “foreign agents” or spies has also resulted in stigmatization and, in some cases, offices being vandalized. More than 200 Russian non-governmental organizations in 50 regions have already undergone inspections, often with devastating effects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Killing of William Browder
    THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER Bill Browder, the fa lse crusader for justice and human rights and the self - styled No. 1 enemy of Vladimir Putin has perpetrated a brazen and dangerous deception upon the Weste rn world. This book traces the anatomy of this deception, unmasking the powerful forces that are pushing the West ern world toward yet another great war with Russia. ALEX KRAINER EQUILIBRIUM MONACO First published in Monaco in 20 17 Copyright © 201 7 by Alex Krainer ISBN 978 - 2 - 9556923 - 2 - 5 Material contained in this book may be reproduced with permission from its author and/or publisher, except for attributed brief quotations Cover page design, content editing a nd copy editing by Alex Krainer. Set in Times New Roman, book title in Imprint MT shadow To the people of Russia and the United States wh o together, hold the keys to the future of humanity. Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson Table of Contents 1. Bill Browder and I ................................ ................................ ............... 1 Browder’s 2005 presentation in Monaco ................................ .............. 2 Harvard club presentation in 2010 ................................ ........................ 3 Ru ssophobia and Putin - bashing in the West ................................ ......... 4 Red notice ................................ ................................ ............................ 6 Reading
    [Show full text]
  • The Kremlin Trojan Horses | the Atlantic Council
    Atlantic Council DINU PATRICIU EURASIA CENTER THE KREMLIN’S TROJAN HORSES Alina Polyakova, Marlene Laruelle, Stefan Meister, and Neil Barnett Foreword by Radosław Sikorski THE KREMLIN’S TROJAN HORSES Russian Influence in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom Alina Polyakova, Marlene Laruelle, Stefan Meister, and Neil Barnett Foreword by Radosław Sikorski ISBN: 978-1-61977-518-3. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. November 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Foreword Introduction: The Kremlin’s Toolkit of Influence 3 in Europe 7 France: Mainstreaming Russian Influence 13 Germany: Interdependence as Vulnerability 20 United Kingdom: Vulnerable but Resistant Policy recommendations: Resisting Russia’s 27 Efforts to Influence, Infiltrate, and Inculcate 29 About the Authors THE KREMLIN’S TROJAN HORSES FOREWORD In 2014, Russia seized Crimea through military force. With this act, the Kremlin redrew the political map of Europe and upended the rules of the acknowledged international order. Despite the threat Russia’s revanchist policies pose to European stability and established international law, some European politicians, experts, and civic groups have expressed support for—or sympathy with—the Kremlin’s actions. These allies represent a diverse network of political influence reaching deep into Europe’s core. The Kremlin uses these Trojan horses to destabilize European politics so efficiently, that even Russia’s limited might could become a decisive factor in matters of European and international security.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russia You Never Met
    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of United Russia and the Putin Presidency: the Role of Contingency in Party-System Development
    The Origins of United Russia and the Putin Presidency: The Role of Contingency in Party-System Development HENRY E. HALE ocial science has generated an enormous amount of literature on the origins S of political party systems. In explaining the particular constellation of parties present in a given country, almost all theoretical work stresses the importance of systemic, structural, or deeply-rooted historical factors.1 While the development of social science theory certainly benefits from the focus on such enduring influ- ences, a smaller set of literature indicates that we must not lose sight of the crit- ical role that chance plays in politics.2 The same is true for the origins of politi- cal party systems. This claim is illustrated by the case of the United Russia Party, which burst onto the political scene with a strong second-place showing in the late 1999 elec- tions to Russia’s parliament (Duma), and then won a stunning majority in the 2003 elections. Most accounts have treated United Russia as simply the next in a succession of Kremlin-based “parties of power,” including Russia’s Choice (1993) and Our Home is Russia (1995), both groomed from the start primarily to win large delegations that provide support for the president to pass legislation.3 The present analysis, focusing on United Russia’s origin as the Unity Bloc in 1999, casts the party in a somewhat different light. When we train our attention on the party’s beginnings rather than on what it wound up becoming, we find that Unity was a profoundly different animal from Our Home and Russia’s Choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security
    RUSSIA: ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IMEMO CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF THE SIPRI YEARBOOK 2004 Institute of World Economy and International Relations RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF WORLD ECONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IMEMO) RUSSIA: ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IMEMO SUPPLEMENT TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF THE SIPRI YEARBOOK 2004 Compiled and edited by ALEXANDRE KALIADINE AND ALEXEI ARBATOV Moscow 2005 УДК 327 ББК 64.4 (0) Rus 95 Rus 95 Russia: arms control, disarmament and international security/ IMEMO supplement to the Russian edition of the SIPRI Yearbook 2004 / Compiled and edited by A. Kaliadine, A. Arbatov. IMEMO, 2005. – 128 p. ISBN 5-9535-0038-6 Your comments and requests for obtaining the book should be sent to: IMEMO 23, Profsoyuznaya str., Moscow GSP-7, 117997 Russian Federation Telephone: (+7 095) 128 05 13 Telefax: (+7 095) 128 65 75 E-mail: [email protected] Internet URL:: http://www.imemo.ru ISBN 5-9535-0038-6 © ИМЭМО РАН, 2005 CONTENTS PREFACE........................................................................................... 5 ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... 7 PART I. ANALYSES, FORECASTS, DISCUSSIONS 1. PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: NEW THREATS, NEW SO LUTIONS. Alexei ARBATOV ................ 13 Nuclear deterrence and terrorism: the prospect of terrorists coming into possession of nuclear weapons....................................................... 14 Synergy of proliferation
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (515Kb)
    European Community No. 26/1984 July 10, 1984 Contact: Ella Krucoff (202) 862-9540 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: 1984 ELECTION RESULTS :The newly elected European Parliament - the second to be chosen directly by European voters -- began its five-year term last month with an inaugural session in Strasbourg~ France. The Parliament elected Pierre Pflimlin, a French Christian Democrat, as its new president. Pflimlin, a parliamentarian since 1979, is a former Prime Minister of France and ex-mayor of Strasbourg. Be succeeds Pieter Dankert, a Dutch Socialist, who came in second in the presidential vote this time around. The new assembly quickly exercised one of its major powers -- final say over the European Community budget -- by blocking payment of a L983 budget rebate to the United Kingdom. The rebate had been approved by Community leaders as part of an overall plan to resolve the E.C.'s financial problems. The Parliament froze the rebate after the U.K. opposed a plan for covering a 1984 budget shortfall during a July Council of Ministers meeting. The issue will be discussed again in September by E.C. institutions. Garret FitzGerald, Prime Minister of Ireland, outlined for the Parliament the goals of Ireland's six-month presidency of the E.C. Council. Be urged the representatives to continue working for a more unified Europe in which "free movement of people and goods" is a reality, and he called for more "intensified common action" to fight unemployment. Be said European politicians must work to bolster the public's faith in the E.C., noting that budget problems and inter-governmental "wrangles" have overshadolted the Community's benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Burgis October 19Th, 2020 INTRODUCTION Tom Burgis Is an Investigations Correspondent at the Financial Times, Based in London
    Rise of a New Kleptocracy: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World | Tom Burgis October 19th, 2020 INTRODUCTION Tom Burgis is an investigations correspondent at the Financial Times, based in London. Previously, he was the paper's west Africa correspondent, based in Lagos, and Johannesburg correspondent. His latest book, “Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering the World,” chronicles the world of dirty money and its complex web of criminals, money launderers, and politicians who enable it. The Washington Post calls it a “magisterial account of the money and violence behind the world’s most powerful dictatorships.” His book, "The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systematic Theft of Africa's Wealth," was published in 2015. The New York Times called it a "brave, defiant book." Burgis won top prize for investigative reporting at the 2015 Society of Publishers in Asia awards and FT's Jones-Mauthner Memorial Prize in 2013, and was short-listed in 2015 for the European Press Prize and Young Journalist of the Year at the 2010 British Press Awards. Before joining the FT, he did a stint in Chile and traveled the world covering globalization and its discontents. WHY DO I CARE? Tom Burgis weaves together four stories that reveal a global web of corruption: the whistle blower from Basingstoke, England who stumbles on the secrets of a Swiss bank, an ex-Soviet billionaire building a private empire, the righteous Canadian lawyer with a tycoon ex-minister and bank founder client, and a Brooklyn crook protected by the CIA. Glimpses of this shadowy world have emerged over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and Civil Society in the Russian Protests, December 2011
    Department of Informatics and Media Social Science – major in Media and Communication Studies Fall 2013 Master Two Years Thesis Social Media and Civil Society in the Russian Protests, December 2011 The role of social media in engagement of people in the protests and their self- identification with civil society Daria Dmitrieva Fall 2013 Supervisor: Dr. Gregory Simons Researcher at Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies 1 2 ABSTRACT The study examines the phenomenon of the December protests in Russia when thousands of citizens were involved in the protest movement after the frauds during the Parliamentary elections. There was a popular opinion in the Internet media that at that moment Russia experienced establishment of civil society, since so many people were ready to express their discontent publically for the first time in 20 years. The focus of this study is made on the analysis of the roles that social media played in the protest movement. As it could be observed at the first glance, recruiting and mobilising individuals to participation in the rallies were mainly conducted via social media. The research analyses the concept of civil society and its relevance to the protest rhetoric and investigates, whether there was a phenomenon of civil society indeed and how it was connected to individuals‘ motivation for joining the protest. The concept of civil society is discussed through the social capital, social and political trust, e- democracy and mediatisation frameworks. The study provides a comprehensive description of the events, based on mainstream and new media sources, in order to depict the nature and the development of the movement.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]