Alexei Navalny: How he defined opposition success in Putin’s Russia by Olivia Loftin A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Arts in Political Science (Honors Scholar) Presented June 1, 2018 Commencement June 2018 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Olivia Loftin for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Arts in Political Science presented on June 1, 2018. Title: Alexei Navalny: How he defined opposition success in Putin’s Russia. Abstract approved:_____________________________________________________ Sarah Henderson Not many people in Russia have been able to successfully create an opposition movement under the presidency of Vladimir Putin. Opposition is already hard in any country, but things are especially difficult in Russia. Putin has made protest regulations, stifled the independent media, and excessively utilized selective rule by law. Navalny, however, has had surprising success considering the circumstances, making people wonder how he has been more successful than other opposition leaders. His use of selective rule by law, his framing of the media, and his international image have all played a role in his path to success. If he can keep the opposition movement alive without getting killed or jailed, Navalny will be one of the first to have a shot at making positive change in the Russian government. Key Words: opposition, leadership, Russia, Putin, Navalny Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected] ©Copyright by Olivia Loftin June 1, 2018 All Rights Reserved Alexei Navalny: How he defined opposition success in Putin’s Russia by Olivia Loftin A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Arts in Political Science (Honors Scholar) Presented June 1, 2018 Commencement June 2018 Honors Baccalaureate of Arts in Political Science project of Olivia Loftin presented on June 1, 2018. APPROVED: _____________________________________________________________________ Sarah Henderson, Mentor, representing Political Science _____________________________________________________________________ Christopher Stout, Committee Member, representing Political Science _____________________________________________________________________ Trina Hogg, Committee Member, representing History _____________________________________________________________________ Toni Doolen, Dean, Oregon State University Honors College I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University, Honors College. My signature below authorizes release of my project to any reader upon request. _____________________________________________________________________ Olivia Loftin, Author Introduction Since Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president in 2000, he has both gained immense popularity and overseen a dramatic decline in the quality of the country’s democracy. Compared to 2000, there are fewer checks on the president’s power, the legislature readily implements his agenda, and it is hard for opposition to mobilize. In addition, because of the lack of independent media, citizens have a hard time finding out about alterative candidates. While the economy has grown, the Kremlin has become extremely corrupt. Throughout the years, many people have attempted to lead opposition in Russia, though many of them fail due to the institutions put in place by the president and his oligarchy. Putin’s presidency has made room for opposition harder to find, and most people who try end up dead or in jail. In addition, it is very hard for an opposition to form. Opposition is small to nonexistent, but opposition in Russia has always been small. However, Putin has implemented several policies to make it dangerous to protest. In fact, opposition leaders such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky have faced jail, while leaders such as Boris Nemtsov have even faced even death. To make things worse, recently passed legislation increases punishments for unauthorized protests. Many would argue that the Russian state has the upper hand over opposition movements (Zakharova, 2016). Alexei Navalny, someone who has been working in the Russian opposition for the past decade, has made an impact where many have failed. Unlike the opposition leaders before him, Navalny has attracted thousands of protesters; not just in the big cities but throughout all of Russia. Through his blog that he developed in 2006, he has been able to reach many young Russian citizens with his anti-corruption campaign. Since he started protesting in 2011, the Kremlin has tried to shut him down using familiar strategies. These strategies include arresting him at key times in his anti- corruption movement, including both times he decided to run for public office. What explains Navalny’s success compared to other opposition leaders? In this context, success means the ability to mobilize thousands and stay alive and out of jail. Analyzing his methods and tactics to consolidate Russian opposition will shed light on how he has been more successful than the people before him. This thesis will use social movement theory to highlight three key factors in opposition movements: state interactions, media framing, and methods of opposition leadership. Navalny has been able to use three tactics to his advantage. This first includes his ability to exploit the Kremlin’s use of rule by law, subsequently using the Kremlin’s weapon against them. Secondly, he has been able to leverage the media surrounding elections, effectively gaining him a wider following. Third, he has garnered international support and attention, making it difficult for the Kremlin to attack him too strongly. Not only is it important to look at where he differs in his strategies, but it is important to look at his personal characteristics. To secure his non-partisan anti-corruption campaign, Navalny has made his political views unclear and ambiguous, making it easy to rally support. Finally, the assumption surrounding his convictions is that they are trumped up, and he is not-guilty in the eyes of most of his followers. These five factors explain how he is still running a successful opposition after almost 8 years, where many others have failed. It’s important to understand his success, because it helps strengthen the understanding of how others can create successful oppositions under repressive regimes. Nuts and Bolts of Opposition Leadership Scholars have been studying political movements and opposition for decades. Social movements and oppositions are different wherever they take place, yet there are still key similarities that help to analyze them (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996, pp 1-20). Throughout different studies, it is demonstrated that there are certain aspects of opposition movements that are the most important to recognize. These include the interactions social movements have with the state, the use of media framing, and understanding the approach of the opposition leader. Social movements are difficult to implement in any governmental structure, but especially difficult in non-democracies. Opposition is easier in democracies, as they are usually given the right to protest and the freedom of speech. In non-democracies, these civil liberties are not always granted. Consequently, it is more difficult for an opposition to gain a following because there are higher risks associated with protesting when that isn’t a right given to people under the government. In Western democracies, there is usually a mediator to help buffer the opposition from the government. An example of this is an opposition aligning itself with a political party. Doing this gives the opposition a base following of members of that political party, as well as a buffer between the opposition and the state. In a non-democracy however, opposition movements are usually about anti-corruption. Because anti- corruption is a non-partisan movement, the opposition cannot align with a partisan group. They must directly interact with the state with no mediator to help with the movement. When an opposition movement is in place to alter state institutions, it is eminent that they will eventually have to come in to contact with the state and its governing structures, shaping the rest of the opposition’s success (Jenkins, 2004, pp. 3-13). Along with state interaction, media framing is also key to an opposition movement’s success. Media framing is a term used to describe how an opposition positions itself within the public eye. It is how the opposition is broadcasted to the country, and can be done intentionally. Having an opposition with a presence in the media will help make it more successful, as it will increase its visibility (McCarthy, Smith, & Zald, 1996, pp. 292-311). The struggle with mass media is the length of attention events receive. An opposition movement might get an initial boost in the news when it starts, but it could lose speed when the press needs to cover another pressing issue. Consistent media attention is needed to gain broader support and to have a broader recognition of the movement. If the movement is being brought up over the course of years, rather than just a few weeks, it shows that the movement has been holding its ground, how long it has been around, and the success they have had since they have been active. Not only is it important to have consistent media attention, but it is also important to garner attention in the political and electoral arenas,