Political Mobilization in the Run-Up to the Presidential Elections (original) (raw)
Related papers
Tightening the screws Political Opposition in Russia
Political opposition in Russia plays since years a marginal role as witnessed by the results of the past elections and the 2018 presidential race looks like a one-man show (Semenov 2018). Even if the systemic political opposition is silent, the society is evolving and we chose to report as an example the demand for change within young people, the so-called first post-Soviet unimplicated generation (definition of the publicist Dmitry Oreshkin). The first part of the paper presents how the regime has created a complex and centralized system of power, in which the opposition could not fit. The second part analyzes the systemic opposition parties in the frame of the 2018 presidential elections. The third part is dedicated to young people, who represent one of the sources (and hope) for future political evolution. Due to the unfair system implemented by the hegemonic party, the political arena is still blocked on past schemes; opposition does not represent today an alternative to the regime. Anyway, new forces are rising in Russian society, a sign that in the future we can probably expect more and more bottom-up dynamics that will foster the renewal of the political panorama.
AFTER THE ELECTION OF NO ALTERNATIVES: THE KREMLIN’S DOMESTIC POLITICAL CHALLENGES FROM 2018 ONWARDS
This working paper discusses four political challenges that the Kremlin will face from 2018 onwards. The first concerns the regime’s great dependency on Vladimir Putin, which has led to the deepening deterioration of formal political institutions. As a result, extremely low turnouts in elections are calling into the question the regime’s electoral authoritarian legitimacy. Second, it is unclear how the Kremlin’s ultrapatriotic course will manage to respond to the people’s everyday problems amid increasing socio-economic difficulties. At the same time, the decreased patriotic euphoria after the Crimean invasion indicates that the state has not managed to build any consensus for identity politics. The third challenge concerns the political potential of corruption for the opposition. Alexei Navalny’s novel anti-corruption populism has demonstrated its potential in mobilizing people throughout Russia, while the regime’s capacity to counter his oppositional populism by means other than coercion is seemingly limited. Finally, growing expectations for change are apparent in popular opinion. It cannot be ruled out that oppositional anti-corruption mobilization indicates a demand for change that is also fuelling local and sectoral socio-economic protests, which have steadily multiplied throughout Russia.
Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition
Slavic Review, 2009
In this article Luke March explores the Russian authorities’ efforts to “manage democracy” through the creation of “parties of power.” It focuses on the quasi-leftist party Just Russia, one of four parties currentiy represented in the Russian Duma and the only one that represents a “parastatal” opposition (opposition owned and controlled by the state). The history of Just Russia tells us much about the dynamics of what Andrew Wilson has described as Russia's “virtual politics“: the regime must continually organize manageable quasi-opposition parties in order to bolster its democratic credentials and channel real social discontent, yet whenever it does so effectively, it quickly creates a potential political threat that must be neutralized. Just Russia has parallels in other authoritarian party systems, such as Mexico under the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) or Nigeria under Abacha and Babangida; the main difference in contemporary Russia lies in the remarkable skill ...
In this WP based on the wide range of data (interviews, focus-groups, participatory observations, polls and event datasets) we argue that prior to FFE campaign there was a slow but steady growth of demand for better political representation, that was not transformed into organisational structures due to the absence of incentives on supply side and restricted regulation of the field. Conventional “opposition” parties contributed much at the beginning of campaign, providing expertise and skills, as well as financial and other resources, but eventually failed to sustain it and attract new comers and activists.