DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Edinburgh Research Explorer Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime Citation for published version: March, L 2009, 'Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition', Slavic Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 504-527. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621653> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Slavic Review Publisher Rights Statement: © March, L. (2009). Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition. Slavic Review, 68(3), 504-527. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition Author(s): Luke March Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Fall, 2009), pp. 504-527 Published by: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621653 . Accessed: 03/02/2014 06:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.215.19.170 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:03:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition Luke March a a Contemporary Russia is not democracy. This is hardly contentious statement outside Russia itself, where the consensus view (as shown most as starkly by Freedom House's reclassification of Russia "not free" since 2005) is that under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Russia moved from a "hybrid regime" (an amalgam of democratic and authoritarian elements zone dic occupying the "gray" between liberal democracy and outright tatorship) to something approaching full-scale autocracy.1 Nevertheless, the nature, salience, and future of the democratic potential within Russia is still very much debated, even as the Russian authorities (most recently rebut with their promulgation of the concept "sovereign democracy") ever criticism more insistently.2 an on the In parallel, increasing emphasis has been placed viewing as United Russia party (Edinaia Rossiia) illustrating the paradoxes of Rus one claims to be a sian party politics. On the hand, the Kremlin creating a modern party system. On the other, United Russia is "party of power" that recalls that has produced the kind of "dominant power politics" as and South "hegemonic party systems" such those in Mexico, Taiwan, on Korea.3 There has, however, been far less focus the increasingly di This is a as Robert Dahl minished political opposition.4 mistake: notes, are: about 1. Some early examples of this view Larry Diamond, "Thinking Hybrid A. Regimes, "Journal ofDemocracy 13, no. 2 (April 2002): 21-35; Steven Levitsky and Lucan no. 2 Way, "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism," Journal of Democracy 13, (April 2002): 51-65; and Graeme Gill, "A New Turn to Authoritarian Rule in Russia?" Democrati no. zation 13, 1 (February 2006): 58-77. some to the view that Russia is not a see "Rus 2. For notable exceptions democracy, Russian Presidential or sia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: Election?Affirming Democracy at for 7 March 2008 accessed 15 Confirming Autocracy?" www.russiaprofile.org (last May or Russia and International 2009). Richard Sakwa, "'New Cold War' Twenty Years' Crisis? demo Politics," InternationalAffairs 84, no. 2 (March 2008): 241-67 insists thatRussia's still rosier than its bleak international cratic potential is image suggests. can found in 3. An excellent account of recent reforms to the party system be under Post-Soviet no. 4 Kenneth Wilson, "Party-System Development Putin," Affairs 22, its antecedents before (October-December 2006): 314-48. Studies of United Russia and Russian this volume include Hans Oversloot and Ruben Verheul, "The Party of Power in Politics," Acta Political InternationalJournal ofPolitical Science 35, no. 2 (Summer 2000): Out: Parties of Power 123-45; Regina Smyth, "Building State Capacity from the Inside Politics and no. 4 and the Success of the President's Reform Agenda in Russia," Society 30, "Parties of Power (December 2002): 555-78; Zoe Knox, Pete Lentini, and Brad Williams, over Civil Problems Post-Communism and Russian Politics: A Victory of the State Society?" of no. and Andrew Konitzer and K 53, 1 (January-February 2006): 3-14; Stephen Wegren, "Federalism and Political Recentralization in the Russian Federation: United Russia as the Party of Power," Publius 36, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 503-22. A 4. A notable exception isVladimir Gel'man, "PoliticalOpposition inRussia: Dying no. Species?" Post-SovietAffairs 21, 3 (July-September 2005): 226-46. Slavic Review 68, no. 3 (Fall 2009) This content downloaded from 129.215.19.170 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:03:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Managing Opposition in aHybrid Regime 505 means the symbiosis of opposition and regime that studying the former inevitably illuminates the latter.5 on My focus here is the party Just Russia: Motherland/Pensioners/ as a case Life (Spravedlivaia Rossiia, hereafter Just Russia) study of the in problems and issues confronting opposition Russia. A self-proclaimed "new socialist" party, Just Russia was established on 28 October 2006 through the merger of three smaller left-leaning groups, Motherland (Rodina), theRussian Party of Life (Rossiiskaia partiia zhizni), and the Russian Pensioners' Party (Rossiiskaia partiia pensionerov) .6 In the Rus sian Duma elections of 2007, Just Russia gained 7.7 percent of the vote and one 38 seats?last place but still of only four parties currently represented in Russia's parliament. nature Just Russia's is poorly understood: skeptics viewed it initially as a Kremlin pocket opposition ("the opposition of the master's maid to the master's butler"), entirely fake and designed essentially to fool the electorate.7 More optimistic analysts believed that Just Russia was a more serious alternative "party of power," possessing the potential either for or greater (albeit limited) multipartism and opposition serious elite level conflict.8 In the event, during the December 2007 election campaign, neither view was to never confirmed; contrary optimists, Just Russia challenged as a United Russia's hegemony "party of power" and serious elite conflict did not to openly erupt. Contrary pessimists, Just Russia limped into par liament, despite widely reported Kremlin indifference. aim here is threefold. to My First, understand why Just Russia emerged. Why, unlike previous disastrous attempts at forming a moderate left oppo sition, did it attain (however modest) success in 2007? Second, to examine what Russia Just illustrates about the role of opposition within the Rus sian Does it indicate or party system. greater pluralistic potential merely a greater imitation of it?What does Just Russia reveal about the way the Kremlin success "manages" opposition and its in doing so? Third, to re flect on the role of in opposition parties "electoral authoritarian" regimes: how are or even they manipulated manufactured; how much "opposition" can even they profess? The answer to these will questions show that both optimists and pessi mists are Russia can as a partly right. Certainly, Just be understood regime created aimed at "parastatal party" providing limited competition for the main of to most "party power" (United Russia). Contrary the skeptical 5. Robert Alan Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, 1966). 6. Russia" is to some other translations "Just preferred (e.g., "AJust Russia," "Russia of to "United Russia" and to others "Fair Justice") by analogy (e.g., Russia") because its slogan "social is a if term. justice" recognized, disputed, left-wing 7. Vladimir Pribylovskii,quoted inNabi Abdullaev, "New Party Says Kremlin Knows Moscow 30 October 2006. Two other Best," Times, analysts holding this view are Boris Ka garlitskii and Boris Makarenko (partly). 8. For see "A Test-Tube examples, Georgy Bovt, Party," Russia Profile 4, no. 1 (27 Feb Alexei ruary 2007): 10; Makarkin, "Election Speculations," Russia Profiled no. 8 (3 Sep tember 7-8. Vitalii Tretiakov and 2007): Igor Bunin expressed similar views. This content downloaded from 129.215.19.170 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:03:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 506 Slavic Review a analyses, however, while Just Russia is heavily manipulated "virtual" op not a to position, it is simply fake designed dupe the electorate but rep resents long-term Kremlin strategic interests in channeling opposition an and thus stabilizing the political regime. Moreover, it has identifiable, ideological position (left-wing social democratic) and electorate, which it, albeit imperfectly and partially, represents. As the optimists argued, Just Russia's evolution indicates the plural ism of competing Kremlin interests and the potential for elite conflict. was Although this conflict effectively contained in the 2007-8 elections, a Just Russia is illustrative of the fundamental paradox of "managed op a an as a position" for regime that needs opposition legitimation of its to too ceases to authority govern.
Recommended publications
  • William Jennings Bryan and His Opposition to American Imperialism in the Commoner

    William Jennings Bryan and His Opposition to American Imperialism in the Commoner

    The Uncommon Commoner: William Jennings Bryan and his Opposition to American Imperialism in The Commoner by Dante Joseph Basista Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the History Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2019 The Uncommon Commoner: William Jennings Bryan and his Opposition to American Imperialism in The Commoner Dante Joseph Basista I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: Dante Basista, Student Date Approvals: Dr. David Simonelli, Thesis Advisor Date Dr. Martha Pallante, Committee Member Date Dr. Donna DeBlasio, Committee Member Date Dr. Salvatore A. Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT This is a study of the correspondence and published writings of three-time Democratic Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan in relation to his role in the anti-imperialist movement that opposed the US acquisition of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico following the Spanish-American War. Historians have disagreed over whether Bryan was genuine in his opposition to an American empire in the 1900 presidential election and have overlooked the period following the election in which Bryan’s editorials opposing imperialism were a major part of his weekly newspaper, The Commoner. The argument is made that Bryan was authentic in his opposition to imperialism in the 1900 presidential election, as proven by his attention to the issue in the two years following his election loss.
  • Was American Expansion Abroad Justified?

    Was American Expansion Abroad Justified?

    NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL STUDIES RESOURCE TOOLKIT 8th Grade American Expansion Inquiry Was American Expansion Abroad Justified? Newspaper front page about the explosIon of the USS Maine, an AmerIcan war shIp. New York Journal. “DestructIon of the War ShIp Maine was the Work of an Enemy,” February 17, 1898. PublIc domain. Available at http://www.pbs.org/crucIble/headlIne7.html. Supporting Questions 1. What condItIons Influenced the United States’ expansion abroad? 2. What arguments were made In favor of ImperIalIsm and the SpanIsh-AmerIcan War? 3. What arguments were made In opposItIon to ImperIalIsm and the SpanIsh-AmerIcan War? 4. What were the results of the US involvement in the Spanish-AmerIcan War? THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION- NONCOMMERCIAL- SHAREALIKE 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE. 1 NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL STUDIES RESOURCE TOOLKIT 8th Grade American Expansion Inquiry Was American Expansion Abroad Justified? 8.3 EXPANSION AND IMPERIALISM: BegInning In the second half of the 19th century, economIc, New York State Social polItIcal, and cultural factors contrIbuted to a push for westward expansIon and more aggressIve Studies Framework Key UnIted States foreIgn polIcy. Idea & Practices Gathering, Using, and Interpreting EVidence Geographic Reasoning Economics and Economic Systems Staging the Question UNDERSTAND Discuss a recent mIlItary InterventIon abroad by the UnIted States. Supporting Question 1 Supporting Question 2 Supporting Question 3 Supporting Question 4 What condItIons Influenced What arguments were
  • 1 Hybrid Regimes, the Rule of Law, and External Influence on Domestic Change

    1 Hybrid Regimes, the Rule of Law, and External Influence on Domestic Change

    9780415451024-Ch01 4/16/08 7:00 PM Page 1 1 Hybrid regimes, the rule of law, and external influence on domestic change Amichai Magen and Leonardo Morlino Introduction At the beginning of the twenty-first century, two sets of phenomena are challenging our understanding of democracy and democratization. First, transition from authoritarian regimes into some form of democracy is no longer understood to constitute the most prevalent or important change in worldwide democratization processes. Second, contemporary processes of domestic political change are unfolding within a radically transformed inter- national environment compared to even two decades ago (Gershman 2005; Whitehead 2004). As the Freedom House organization has been underlining in its reports over the last decade,1 etc. the stable, closed authoritarian regime has become something of a rarity. While in 1974 – the year that heralded the launch of the “third wave” of global democratization with the Portuguese Revolução dos Cravos (Huntington 1991) – the number of democracies on the planet stood at a mere 39, at the end of 2006, out of 193 independent countries, 123 ranked as electoral democracies (Freedom House 2006). Thus, for the first time in human history, democracy had become not only a universal aspiration, but the predominant form of government in the world, and the only form enjoying broad international legitimacy (McFaul 2004; Gershman 2005; Sen 1999). The triumph of democracy, moreover, has (so far at least) proven steadier than many would have expected, with cases of outright breakdowns and reversions to autocracy, and fears of a “reverse wave” to autocracy, largely held at bay (Diamond 2000; 2005).
  • Agreement Between the Two Campaign Teams Regarding the Structure of the National Unity Government This Period in Afghanistan's

    Agreement Between the Two Campaign Teams Regarding the Structure of the National Unity Government This Period in Afghanistan's

    Agreement between the Two Campaign Teams Regarding the Structure of the National Unity Government This period in Afghanistan’s history requires a legitimate and functioning government committed to implementing a comprehensive program of reform to empower the Afghan public, thereby making the values of the Constitution a daily reality for the people of Afghanistan. Stability of the country is strengthened by a genuine political partnership between the President and the CEO, under the authority of the President. Dedicated to political consensus, commitment to reforms, and cooperative decision-making, the national unity government will fulfill the aspirations of the Afghan public for peace, stability, security, rule of law, justice, economic growth, and delivery of services, with particular attention to women, youth, Ulema, and vulnerable persons. Further, this agreement is based on the need for genuine and meaningful partnership and effective cooperation in the affairs of government, including design and implementation of reforms. The relationship between the President and the CEO cannot be described solely and entirely by this agreement, but must be defined by the commitment of both sides to partnership, collegiality, collaboration, and, most importantly, responsibility to the people of Afghanistan. The President and CEO are honor bound to work together in that spirit of partnership. A. Convening of a Loya Jirga to amend the Constitution and considering the proposal to create the post of executive prime minister • On the basis of Article 2 of the Joint Statement of 17 Asad 1393 (August 8, 2014) and its attachment (“…convening of a Loya Jirga in two years to consider the post of an executive prime minister”), the President is committed to convoking a Loya Jirga for the purpose of debate on amending the Constitution and creating a post of executive prime minister.
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A

    THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A

    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
  • Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization

    Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization

    Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization Shanto Iyengar Stanford University Sean J. Westwood Princeton University When defined in terms of social identity and affect toward copartisans and opposing partisans, the polarization of the American electorate has dramatically increased. We document the scope and consequences of affective polarization of partisans using implicit, explicit, and behavioral indicators. Our evidence demonstrates that hostile feelings for the opposing party are ingrained or automatic in voters’ minds, and that affective polarization based on party is just as strong as polarization based on race. We further show that party cues exert powerful effects on nonpolitical judgments and behaviors. Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans, doing so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race. We note that the willingness of partisans to display open animus for opposing partisans can be attributed to the absence of norms governing the expression of negative sentiment and that increased partisan affect provides an incentive for elites to engage in confrontation rather than cooperation. ore than 50 years after the publication of The social norms (Himmelfarb and Lickteig 1982; Maccoby American Voter (Campbell et al. 1960), de- and Maccoby 1954; Sigall and Page 1971), there are no M bates over the nature of partisanship and the corresponding pressures to temper disapproval of po- extent of party polarization continue (see Fiorina and litical opponents. If anything, the rhetoric and actions Abrams 2008; Hetherington 2009). While early studies of political leaders demonstrate that hostility directed at viewed partisanship as a manifestation of other group the opposition is acceptable, even appropriate.
  • Partisanship in Perspective

    Partisanship in Perspective

    Partisanship in Perspective Pietro S. Nivola ommentators and politicians from both ends of the C spectrum frequently lament the state of American party politics. Our elected leaders are said to have grown exceptionally polarized — a change that, the critics argue, has led to a dysfunctional government. Last June, for example, House Republican leader John Boehner decried what he called the Obama administration’s “harsh” and “hyper-partisan” rhetoric. In Boehner’s view, the president’s hostility toward Republicans is a smokescreen to obscure Obama’s policy failures, and “diminishes the office of the president.” Meanwhile, President Obama himself has complained that Washington is a city in the grip of partisan passions, and so is failing to do the work the American people expect. “I don’t think they want more gridlock,” Obama told Republican members of Congress last year. “I don’t think they want more partisanship; I don’t think they want more obstruc- tion.” In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama yearned for what he called a “time before the fall, a golden age in Washington when, regardless of which party was in power, civility reigned and government worked.” The case against partisan polarization generally consists of three elements. First, there is the claim that polarization has intensified sig- nificantly over the past 30 years. Second, there is the argument that this heightened partisanship imperils sound and durable public policy, perhaps even the very health of the polity. And third, there is the impres- sion that polarized parties are somehow fundamentally alien to our form of government, and that partisans’ behavior would have surprised, even shocked, the founding fathers.
  • Credible Commitments and the Perils of Moderation: Why the Egyptian Opposition Is Met by Repression

    Credible Commitments and the Perils of Moderation: Why the Egyptian Opposition Is Met by Repression

    Credible Commitments and the Perils of Moderation: Why the Egyptian Opposition is Met by Repression Jason Brownlee Department of Government University of Texas at Austin [email protected] Paper prepared for the conference on “Dictatorships: Their Governance and Social Consequences,” Princeton University, 25-26 April 2008. The author thanks participants in the conference on “Islamists and Democrats” at the American University in Cairo for earlier suggestions. This is a draft version. Comments welcome. Not for citation, distribution, or use without the author’s permission. 1 Abstract: Explanations of opposition electoral failure in majority Muslim countries have highlighted the need for credible commitments by moderate opposition forces. This paper shows such commitments may not bring incumbents to recognize the challenger’s electoral mandate. Since 1990 Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has spurned and suppressed his country’s non- revolutionary opposition groups, religious and non-religious. Significantly, this stance extends through two different periods, in which the context of regime-opposition relations changed dramatically. During the 1990s Mubarak’s forces waged an internal war to stop Al-Jama`a Al- Islamiyya’s violent bid for Islamic revolution. In March 1999 Al-Jama`a officially surrendered and subsequently has conducted no attacks. During this recent period of domestic stability (March 1999 – April 2008) Mubarak continued suppressing a range of reformist challengers, including the Muslim Brothers and non-religious parties. This pattern of behavior indicates authoritarian rulers may find moderate opposition movements as threatening and intolerable as militant challengers. To the extent that incumbents can steal elections and jail dissidents at little cost, the opposition’s moderation may encourage the regime to eschew compromise and pacts.
  • The Russian Connections of Far-Right and Paramilitary Organizations in the Czech Republic

    The Russian Connections of Far-Right and Paramilitary Organizations in the Czech Republic

    Petra Vejvodová Jakub Janda Veronika Víchová The Russian connections of far-right and paramilitary organizations in the Czech Republic Edited by Edit Zgut and Lóránt Győri April, 2017 A study by Political Capital The Russian connections of far-right and paramilitary organizations in the Czech Republic Commissioned by Political Capital Budapest 2017 Authors: Petra Vejvodová (Masaryk University), Jakub Janda (European Values Think Tank), Veronika Víchová (European Values Think Tank) Editor: Lóránt Győri (Political Capital), Edit Zgut (Political Capital) Publisher: Political Capital Copy editing: Zea Szebeni, Veszna Wessenauer (Political Capital) Proofreading: Patrik Szicherle (Political Capital), Joseph Foss Facebook data scraping and quantitative analysis: Csaba Molnár (Political Capital) This publication and research was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy. 2 Content Content ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Foreword .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Main findings .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Policy
  • Governments of National Unity: Analyzing the Conditions Influencing Dissolution

    Governments of National Unity: Analyzing the Conditions Influencing Dissolution

    Governments of National Unity: Analyzing the Conditions Influencing Dissolution Prepared for the U.S. Government Office of South Asia Analysis By Dylan Blake Olivia Butler Ryan Dunk Michelle Duren Katie Jenkins Joel Lashmore Allison Sambo Workshop in International Public Affairs Spring 2015 ©2015 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System All rights reserved. For an online copy, see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/research-public-service/workshops-in-public-affairs [email protected] The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors. The University of Wisconsin–Madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative-action educator and employer. We promote excellence through diversity in all programs. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................
  • The Party System in Russia's Regions Since 2003

    The Party System in Russia's Regions Since 2003

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2012 Institutional Engineering in a Managed Democracy: The Party System in Russia’s Regions Since 2003 Christian Alexander Peyton [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Comparative Politics Commons, and the Other Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Peyton, Christian Alexander, "Institutional Engineering in a Managed Democracy: The Party System in Russia’s Regions Since 2003" (2012). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1538 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Peyton 1 Institutional Engineering in a Managed Democracy: The Party System in Russia’s Regions Since 2003 Christian Alexander Peyton Peyton 2 Abstract After a decade of near-total relegation to the political sidelines in regional governments, political parties in Russia's regions became prominent actors following reforms under President Vladimir Putin. President Putin's reforms were directed at both the supply and demand side of the electoral market. By mandating that 50% of regional legislative seats be reserved for political parties, political parties became viable electoral vehicles for politicians. Concurrently, Putin regulated the supply of parties by raising membership requirements.
  • HYBRID REGIMES in MODERN TIMES: Between Democracy and Autocracy

    HYBRID REGIMES in MODERN TIMES: Between Democracy and Autocracy

    HYBRID REGIMES IN MODERN TIMES: Between Democracy and Autocracy Dr. Inna Melnykovska Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Central European University Email: [email protected] MA Programme in Political Science (1 year and 2 years) Doctoral School of Political Science, International Relations and Public Policy Core course Comparative Politics and Political Economy Tracks Winter semester 2020 (4 credits, 8 ECTS credits) Class meetings: XXX Office hours: XXX Introduction to the issue Hybrid regimes that alloy democratic rules with authoritarian governance are the most widespread political systems in the world at the beginning of the 21st century. Conventional accounts describe them as defective democracies or competitive authoritarian regimes. Alternative views point to the genuine features and functions of these regimes that cannot be reduced to those of half-democracies or half-autocracies. In fact, hybrid regimes are puzzling in several ways: (1) their establishment and sustainability have been unexpected either by the school of democratization/transitology or by the school of (new) authoritarianism; (2) neither democratic institutions (e.g. elections) nor autocratic institutions (e.g. dominant parties) function in a conventional way there; and (3) contrary to the expectations of stability, hybrid regimes have demonstrated a variety of (within-type) dynamics. Topics and regional focus In this course, we will seek to unpack the category of hybrid regimes and explore the following questions: What are the origins of hybrid regimes? What are the specifics of their institutional functionality in comparison with democracies and/or autocracies? What determines their durability and dynamic nature? We will review the major research approaches that analyze the political regimes in the ‘grey zone’ between democracy and autocracy and further link these approaches to the broader literature on statehood, economic development and social order.