DOCSLIB.ORG

Zavadskaya Et Al Russia Electoral Authoritarian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zavadskaya Et Al Russia Electoral Authoritarian Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 25: 4 (Fall 2017): 455-480 ELECTORAL SOURCES OF AUTHORITARIAN RESILIENCE IN RUSSIA: VARIETIES OF ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE, 2007-2016 MARGARITA ZAVADSKAYA EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY AT ST. PETERSBURG MAX GRÖMPING THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY FERRAN MARTINEZ I COMA GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY Abstract: Elections do not always serve as instruments of democracy, but can successfully sustain modern forms of authoritarianism by maintaining political cooptation, signaling the regime’s invincibility, distributing rent among elites, and maintaining linkages with territorial communities. Russia exemplifies electoral practices adapted to the needs of authoritarian survival. Recent institutional reforms reflect the regime’s constant adjustment to emerging challenges. This study traces the evolution of the role of elections in Russia for ruling elites, the opposition, and parties. It argues that the information-gathering and co-optation functions of elections help sustain authoritarian rule, whereas insufficient co-optation and failure to signal regime strength may lead to anti-regime mobilization and Dr. Margarita Zavadskaya is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Sociology at the European University at Saint Petersburg and senior research fellow at the Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, Higher School of Economics (Russia). Contact: [email protected]. Dr. Max Grömping is Research Associate with the Department of Government and Interna- tional Relations, University of Sydney (Australia). Contact: [email protected]. Dr. Ferran Martínez i Coma is Research Fellow at the Centre for Governance and Public Policy and the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane (Australia). Contact: [email protected]. 455 456 Demokratizatsiya 25:4 (Fall 2017) weaken the regime. The study utilizes new data from an expert survey on electoral integrity and malpractice in Russia carried out immediately after the legislative elections to the State Duma in September 2016. uccessive uninterrupted election cycles – even rigged and substandard Sones – are often expected to foster democratic rule through gradual learning and the embedding of the electoral game as the standard procedure for transitioning power.1 However, evidence from a number of political regimes suggests that this is not always the case. The post-Soviet space and Southeast Asia are two regions where repetitive elections over more than two decades have not strengthened democratic practices but rather seem to have solidified authoritarian regimes. Russia, for instance, holds regular national and subnational elections, yet a range of indicators clearly indicate that the political regime falls short of an electoral democracy.2 The blossoming literature on electoral authoritarianism has already demonstrated that elections do not always serve as instruments of democra- cy,3 but can instead successfully sustain modern forms of authoritarianism.4 Some scholars claim that elections maintain political cooptation,5 while others draw attention to how elections may scare off the opposition by signaling the regime’s invincibility.6 Still others stress the role of authoritarian election in distributing rents among elites,7 or in maintain- ing linkages with territorial communities.8 Yet, few studies to date have explicitly examined the possible interplay of these functions and their dependence on the needs of a regime at any given point in time. Our study addresses this gap by arguing that each autocracy relies on a strategically deployed toolbox of instruments, or “menu of manipulation” 1Staffan I. Lindberg. 2006. Democracy and Elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; Staffan I. Lindberg. 2009. Democratization by Elections: A New Mode of Transition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2Vladimir Gel’man. 2014. “The Rise and Decline of Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia.” Demokratizatsiya 22: 4: 503; Vladimir Gel’man. 2016. “The Politics of Fear: How Russia’s Rulers Counter Their Rivals.” Russian Politics 1:1: 27-45. 3Bingham Powell. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Propor- tional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 4Andreas Schedler. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers; Milan W. Svolik. 2012. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press. 5Jennifer Gandhi and Adam Przeworski. 2007. “Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40: 11: 1279-1301. 6Beatriz Magaloni. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press. 7Ellen Lust. 2009. “Competitive Clientelism in the Middle East.” Journal of Democracy 20: 3: 122–35; Lisa Blaydes. 2010. Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press. 8Henry Hale. 2006. Why Not Parties in Russia? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Authoritarian Resilience in Russia 457 to facilitate the exercise of political power over the ruled. The toolbox may include “lies, fear and economic prosperity,” as posited by Adam Przeworski.9 This involves restricting the flow of information; censor- ship; targeted or wholesale repression; and specific forms of upholding political legitimacy. On the one hand, elections make it easier for the incumbent to collect politically relevant information. On the other hand, they urge the ruling elites to minimize electoral uncertainty, specifically uncertainty about remaining in office, ex ante. This leads incumbents and regime officials to tilt the electoral playing field through a variety of manipulations, from re-drafting electoral and party legislation to ballot stuffing or the intimidation of voters and opposition.10 Recent research has demonstrated that the role of elections varies dramatically from one form of authoritarianism to another, reflecting its ambiguous role in triggering democratization.11 But does the role of elections also change over time and space within a given autocracy? The research question we pursue in this study is: what role do elec- tions have in authoritarian regimes for a) the regime, b) the opposition, and c) the citizenry? More specifically, how can one understand the functional evolution of the role of elections in the context of electoral authoritarian- ism and shifts in the international environment? We pursue this research question with a longitudinal case study of electoral malpractice in the Russian Federation from 2007 to 2016. Russia provides a vivid example of how electoral practices were adapted to the needs of authoritarian survival, sending signals to the real and potential opposition and maintaining political cooptation and rent distribution via electoral means. Moreover, the role and function of elections in upholding electoral authoritarianism has changed from one electoral cycle to another. The recent institutional reforms and the variety of electoral malpractice observed throughout electoral cycles reflect constant adjustment to emerg- ing challenges on the part of the regime. Previous research has argued that on the eve of national elections, the incumbent deals with a trade-off between the need to learn about the genuine level of popular support and the imperative to keep electoral uncertainty as low as possible.12 This is known as the Electoral Dictator’s Dilemma. The incumbent chooses whether s/he seeks to send a signal 9Adam Przeworski. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10Schedler, Electoral Authoritarianism…; Edmund Malesky and Paul Schuler. 2010. “Nod- ding or Needling: Analyzing Delegate Responsiveness in an Authoritarian Parliament.” American Political Science Review 104: 03: 482–502; Lee Morgenbesser. 2016. “The Failure of Democratisation by Elections in Cambodia.” Contemporary Politics 27 (September): 1–21. 11Jason Brownlee. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. New York: Cam- bridge University Press; Lee Morgenbesser and Thomas Pepinsky. States, Neopatrimonial- ism, and Elections: Democratization in Southeast Asia. New York: Oxford University Press. 12Malesky and Schuler, “Nodding or Needling.” 458 Demokratizatsiya 25:4 (Fall 2017) about his/her strength or, alternatively, obtain credible information about the compliance of regime subordinates, elites support, and potential pockets of political resistance. In a contribution to this research, we argue that Russian elections have evolved from being a mere tool for coopting elites or opposition and gathering information about regime support and potential ruptures to being a means of sending signals about the regime’s strength and moni- toring loyalty. We thereby consider another trade-off facing an incumbent, namely his/her rewarding strategies. Does s/he wish to please either his/ her core constituency (members of the ruling coalition) or swing constitu- encies? In following existing game-theoretic reasoning, we argue that this depends on the political context and the size of the economic pie.13 In developing this argument, the study draws on a variety of empiri- cal evidence – specifically mass and expert surveys, as well as comparative indicators of electoral integrity. In particular, the study takes advantage of new data on electoral integrity and malpractice in Russia from an expert survey carried out
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The North Caucasus: the Challenges of Integration (III), Governance, Elections, Rule of Law
    The North Caucasus: The Challenges of Integration (III), Governance, Elections, Rule of Law Europe Report N°226 | 6 September 2013 International Crisis Group Headquarters Avenue Louise 149 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 502 90 38 Fax: +32 2 502 50 38 [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Recommendations..................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Russia between Decentralisation and the “Vertical of Power” ....................................... 3 A. Federative Relations Today ....................................................................................... 4 B. Local Government ...................................................................................................... 6 C. Funding and budgets ................................................................................................. 6 III. Elections ........................................................................................................................... 9 A. State Duma Elections 2011 ........................................................................................ 9 B. Presidential Elections 2012 ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Noncommunist Left, Social Constituencies, and Political Strategies in Russia
    The Noncommunist Left, Social Constituencies, and Political Strategies in Russia PAUL T. CHRISTENSEN efining and identifying the noncommunist Left in Russia is in many ways an Dexercise in frustration. Whereas the organizations of the noncommunist Left in Russia are somewhat more permanent than that analogy suggests, the sugges- tion that we are dealing with tenuous political formations, with few exceptions, very much to the point. There are many such organizations in Russia; some are relatively stable and have a history, many are not; and all of them are relatively small and have problematic constituencies. There are three central questions to address if we are to understand the potential political import of these groups for Russia’s political future. First, what are the organizations and parties of the non- communist Left that have any stature and political salience? Second, what are their actual or potential social constituencies? Third, what are the political strate- gies of the noncommunist Left, and why does it seem to have such a problem in carving out a political space in contemporary Russia? Before discussing the specific questions raised above, it is important to situ- ate the noncommunist Left in Russia, and indeed the entire Russian political spec- trum, on the conceptual map of political ideologies used in Western social science. Left—historically centered around socialist and communist movements—puts a high value on democracy in the economic as well as in the political realm, on eco- nomic egalitarianism, and traditionally views an expansive role for the state and organized social interests in the operation of society as necessary and positive.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Russian Federation – Presidential Election, 18 March 2018
    INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Russian Federation – Presidential Election, 18 March 2018 STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The 18 March presidential election took place in an overly controlled legal and political environment marked by continued pressure on critical voices, while the Central Election Commission (CEC) administered the election efficiently and openly. After intense efforts to promote turnout, citizens voted in significant numbers, yet restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of assembly, association and expression, as well as on candidate registration, have limited the space for political engagement and resulted in a lack of genuine competition. While candidates could generally campaign freely, the extensive and uncritical coverage of the incumbent as president in most media resulted in an uneven playing field. Overall, election day was conducted in an orderly manner despite shortcomings related to vote secrecy and transparency of counting. Eight candidates, one woman and seven men, stood in this election, including the incumbent president, as self-nominated, and others fielded by political parties. Positively, recent amendments significantly reduced the number of supporting signatures required for candidate registration. Seventeen prospective candidates were rejected by the CEC, and six of them challenged the CEC decisions unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court. Remaining legal restrictions on candidates rights are contrary to OSCE commitments and other international standards, and limit the inclusiveness of the candidate registration process. Most candidates publicly expressed their certainty that the incumbent president would prevail in the election. With many of the candidates themselves stating that they did not expect to win, the election lacked genuine competition. Thus, efforts to increase the turnout predominated over the campaign of the contestants.
    [Show full text]
  • HANDBOOK for Foreign (International) Observers During the Election of the President of the Russian Federation
    Election of the President of the Russian Federation HANDBOOK for Foreign (International) Observers during the election of the President of the Russian Federation Published by the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation Moscow 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Decision of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation № 528-SF of 15 December 2017 “on Scheduling the Election of the President of the Russian Federation” ........................................5 Extract from the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (OSCE) dated 29 June, 1990 ...........................................................................................................6 Extract from the Convention on the Standards of Democratic Elections, Electoral Rights and Freedoms in the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States: Article 7, paragraph 5 and article 15 paragraphs 1 and 2. ...........................................................7 Major Amendments and Additions to the Electoral Legislation Made in 2016-2017 .......................................................................................8 System of electoral authorities responsible for preparation and conduct of the Election of the President of the Russian Federation ..........11 Transparency of the activities of election commissions (extract from Article 23 of Federal Law on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation of 10 January 2003 №19-FZ) .........................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Strategy for Influence Through Public Diplomacy
    Journal of Strategic Studies ISSN: 0140-2390 (Print) 1743-937X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjss20 Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case Martin Kragh & Sebastian Åsberg To cite this article: Martin Kragh & Sebastian Åsberg (2017): Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case, Journal of Strategic Studies, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830 Published online: 05 Jan 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 32914 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjss20 Download by: [Anna Lindh-biblioteket] Date: 21 April 2017, At: 02:48 THE JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC STUDIES, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830 Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case Martin Kragha,b and Sebastian Åsbergc aHead of Russia and Eurasia Programme, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm; bUppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden; cRussia and Eurasia Studies, Swedish Institute of International Affairs ABSTRACT Russia, as many contemporary states, takes public diplomacy seriously. Since the inception of its English language TV network Russia Today in 2005 (now ‘RT’), the Russian government has broadened its operations to include Sputnik news websites in several languages and social media activities. Moscow, however, has also been accused of engaging in covert influence activities – behaviour historically referred to as ‘active measures’ in the Soviet KGB lexicon on political warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Putin's Return Puts Future in Doubt
    Orbital odyssey Spaceflight Investing in aspirations do not get much bigger than a hotel in orbit but the reality is rather more down­to­earth RUSSIA Page 4 FINANCIAL TIMES SPECIAL REPORT | Tuesday October 4 2011 www.ft.com/investing­russia­2011 | twitter.com/ftreports Putin’s return puts future in doubt Now that uncertainty over the leadership has been removed, attention has turned to the longer term. Charles Clover reports or the Kremlin to do some- thing utterly predictable is quite rare. For this reason, the return of Vladimir Putin as FRussia’s president next May managed to take Russia’s political class by sur- prise. Mr Putin’s return, announced on September 24, lays to rest the prin- cipal source of intrigue over the past four years. Ever since he avoided constitutional prohibition on a third term in 2008 by appointing his friend Dmitry Medvedev to the presidency while he became prime minister, Moscow polit- ical circles have speculated about his return. Now that this uncertainty has been cleared up, the chattering classes are wondering what the third (and likely fourth) Putin term will bring. Things have not gone well thus far – the very announcement was botched, taking not only the public by surprise, but also the most senior gov- ernment officials. The decision that Mr Medvedev would take over as prime minister Changing places: Vladimir Putin (left) with current president Dmitry Medvedev at the United Russia party’s congress, where Medvedev announced the return of his predecessor Getty next year, meanwhile, provoked a row with Alexei Kudrin, the finance minis- Raising investment is a priority for growth will be about increases in effi- speech to investors at a conference in ian political system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Groups, Individuals, Strategies and Prospects the Russia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society
    The Russian Opposition: A Survey of Groups, Individuals, Strategies and Prospects The Russia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society By Julia Pettengill Foreword by Chris Bryant MP 1 First published in 2012 by The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society 8th Floor – Parker Tower, 43-49 Parker Street, London, WC2B 5PS Tel: 020 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society, 2012 All rights reserved The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its directors Designed by Genium, www.geniumcreative.com ISBN 978-1-909035-01-0 2 About The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society: A cross-partisan, British think-tank. Our founders and supporters are united by a common interest in fostering a strong British, European and American commitment towards freedom, liberty, constitutional democracy, human rights, governmental and institutional reform and a robust foreign, security and defence policy and transatlantic alliance. The Henry Jackson Society is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales under company number 07465741 and a charity registered in England and Wales under registered charity number 1140489. For more information about Henry Jackson Society activities, our research programme and public events please see www.henryjacksonsociety.org. 3 CONTENTS Foreword by Chris Bryant MP 5 About the Author 6 About the Russia Studies Centre 6 Acknowledgements 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 INTRODUCTION 11 CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Country Report BTI 2016
    BTI 2016 | Russia Country Report Status Index 1-10 5.06 # 81 of 129 Political Transformation 1-10 4.40 # 83 of 129 Economic Transformation 1-10 5.71 # 65 of 129 Management Index 1-10 3.17 # 114 of 129 scale score rank trend This report is part of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2016. It covers the period from 1 February 2013 to 31 January 2015. The BTI assesses the transformation toward democracy and a market economy as well as the quality of political management in 129 countries. More on the BTI at http://www.bti-project.org. Please cite as follows: Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2016 — Russia Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. BTI 2016 | Russia 2 Key Indicators Population M 143.8 HDI 0.778 GDP p.c., PPP $ 25635.9 Pop. growth1 % p.a. 0.2 HDI rank of 187 57 Gini Index 41.6 Life expectancy years 71.1 UN Education Index 0.780 Poverty3 % 0.5 Urban population % 73.9 Gender inequality2 0.314 Aid per capita $ - Sources (as of October 2015): The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2015 | UNDP, Human Development Report 2014. Footnotes: (1) Average annual growth rate. (2) Gender Inequality Index (GII). (3) Percentage of population living on less than $3.10 a day at 2011 international prices. Executive Summary At the time of writing, Vladimir Putin has been in power for more than fifteen years. Putin served an initial two terms as president from 2000 to 2008, followed by one term as prime minister between 2008 and 2012, before beginning a third term as president in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Chechnya's Status Within the Russian
    SWP Research Paper Uwe Halbach Chechnya’s Status within the Russian Federation Ramzan Kadyrov’s Private State and Vladimir Putin’s Federal “Power Vertical” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs SWP Research Paper 2 May 2018 In the run-up to the Russian presidential elections on 18 March 2018, the Kremlin further tightened the federal “vertical of power” that Vladimir Putin has developed since 2000. In the North Caucasus, this above all concerns the republic of Dagestan. Moscow intervened with a powerful purge, replacing the entire political leadership. The situation in Chechnya, which has been ruled by Ramzan Kadyrov since 2007, is conspicuously different. From the early 2000s onwards, President Putin conducted a policy of “Chechenisation” there, delegating the fight against the armed revolt to local security forces. Under Putin’s protection, the republic gained a leadership which is now publicly referred to by Russians as the “Chechen Khanate”, among other similar expressions. Kadyrov’s breadth of power encompasses an independ- ent foreign policy, which is primarily orientated towards the Middle East. Kadyrov emphatically professes that his republic is part of Russia and presents himself as “Putin’s foot soldier”. Yet he has also transformed the federal subject of Chechnya into a private state. The ambiguous relationship between this republic and the central power fundamentally rests on the loyalty pact between Putin and Kadyrov. However, criticism of this arrange- ment can now occasionally be heard even in the Russian president’s inner circles. With regard to Putin’s fourth term, the question arises just how long the pact will last.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Vote Counts' Digits to Diagnose
    Using Vote Counts’ Digits to Diagnose Strategies and Frauds: Russia∗ Walter R. Mebane, Jr.† August 11, 2013 ∗Prepared for presentation at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Asso- ciation, Chicago, August 29–September 1, 2013. †Professor, Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 (E-mail: [email protected]). Abstract Tests of the digits of vote counts have been proposed to diagnose election fraud. Both the second-digit Benford’s-like Law (2BL) and the idea that the last digits should be uniformly distributed have been proposed as standards for clean elections. Many claim that election fraud is rampant in recent Russian federal elections (since 2004), so Russia should be a good setting in which to see whether the digit tests add any diagnostic power. Using precinct-level data from Russia, I first use a randomization test to identify sets of precincts (called UIKs in Russia) in which vote counts for candidates are augmented compared to vote counts in a comparison sets of UIKs. These are a subset of UIKs in which turnout percentages or the percentage of votes for Putin (or United Russia) are divisible by five. Then I run tests of the second and last digits of the UIK vote counts both for the entire set of UIKs in an election year and separately for various sets of UIKs. The digit tests produce surprising and on balance implausible results. For example, they suggest that none of the votes for Putin in 2004 and 2012 or for United Russia in 2011 were fraudulent, while votes for Medvedev in 2008 were fraudulent.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Self-Rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH and POLICY SCOPE The
    Russia Self-rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH AND POLICY SCOPE The Russian Federation has two (in some areas, three) tiers of regional governance: eighty-five subyekty federacii or subyekty (federal units or “subjects”), which since 2000 have been organized within eight federalnyye okruga (federal districts); and, in most subyekty federacii, raionabi (districts).1 Raionabi have an average population under 150,000 in all subyekty.2 The most powerful intermediate tier consists of the subyekty federacii, which are composed of twenty-two respubliki (republics), forty-six oblasti (provinces), nine kraya (territories), four avtonomnyye okruga (autonomous districts), one avtonomnaya oblast (autonomous province), and the three federalnyye goroda (federal cities) of St Petersburg, Moscow, and Sevastopol (C 1993, Art. 65). Russia began in 1993 with eighty-nine subyekty, but six have since been merged.3 Each boundary change requires the consent of the affected subyekt as well as of the federal government (C 1993, Art. 67.3). Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea were annexed as Russian federal subjects in 2014. Respubliki and avtonomnyye okruga have an ethnic base; oblasts and krais are non-ethnic 1 In 2014, the ministry for regional development selected 16 ‘pilot projects’ to establish metropolitan governance structures. In most subyekty federacii, a coordination council was established consisting of the mayors of the participating municipalities and some subyekty federacii also created an executive agency to implement the council’s decisions. The ‘pilot project’ is awaiting federal legislation, participation of the municipalities is voluntary, the decisions of the coordination council are non-binding, and by law municipal budget funds cannot be spent beyond municipal boundaries (Kinossian 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The End of the Putin Consensus Ben Judah and Andrew Wilson
    M P o e L M i CY The end of The o PuTin Consensus Ben Judah and Andrew Wilson Since December, Russia has been rocked by mass protests SU The “Putin consensus” of the 2000s is over. demanding clean elections and an end to the culture of Although Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is immunity on corruption. After a decade of over-control, certain to win a hollow victory in the Russian Russia is undergoing a process of re-politicisation. After presidential elections in March, the current the financial crisis exposed Russia’s chronic governance MMARY electoral cycle has weakened his authority and crisis and its dashed dreams of being a rising economic shown the fragility of his regime. Russia is undergoing a process of re-politicisation and is power, as ECFR argued in Dealing with a Post-BRIC entering a phase of “late Putinism” that is likely Russia, the “Putin consensus” has broken down and to be characterised by elite divisions, continued the “Putin majority” in society has decayed.1 However, protests and a gradual ebbing away of popular although Russia is restless, it is not yet revolutionary. support. The protest movement that erupted There is still a passive Putin plurality, largely drawn from after the falsified vote in the parliamentary the older, poorer and more provincial parts of society election in December has not yet challenged that are frightened of change and see no alternative to Putin’s grip on power but is nevertheless a symptom of an increasingly unstable Russia. Putin. The protest movement remains a minority, but it is concentrated in the country’s most dynamic demographics The European Union should see the current – particularly among Muscovites the new middle classes, crisis as a clear signal that the Putin system will the young and the cultural elites.
    [Show full text]