Plus ça change: getting real about the evolution of Russian studies after 1991
In: Post-Soviet affairs, Band 39, Heft 1/2, S. 10-26
ISSN: 1938-2855
In: Post-Soviet affairs, Band 39, Heft 1/2, S. 10-26
ISSN: 1938-2855
World Affairs Online
In: Slavic review: interdisciplinary quarterly of Russian, Eurasian and East European studies, Band 82, Heft 3, S. 780-784
ISSN: 2325-7784
"Despite decades of Putin, it is too simplistic to assert that authoritarianism has eliminated Russian activism, especially in relation to everyday life. Instead, we must build an awareness of diverse efforts to mobilize citizens to better understand how activism is shaped by and, in turn, shapes the regime. Varieties of Russian Activism focuses on a broad range of collective actions, from labor unions to housing renovation, religion, electoral politics, minority language rights, and urban planning. Contributors draw attention to significant forms of grassroots politics that have not received sufficient attention in scholarship, or that deserve fresh examination. The volume shows that Russians find novel ways to redress everyday problems and demand new services. Together, these essays interrogate what kinds of practices can be defined as activism in a fast-changing, politically volatile society. An engaging collection, Varieties of Russian Activism unites leading scholars in the common aim of approaching the embeddedness of civic activism in the conditions of everyday life, connectedness, and rising society-state expectations"--
In: American political science review, S. 1-1
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: Post-Soviet affairs, Band 39, Heft 1-2, S. 10-26
ISSN: 1938-2855
In a path-breaking study of Russian elections, Regina Smyth reveals how much electoral competition matters to the Putin regime and how competition leaves Russia more vulnerable to opposition challenges than is perceived in the West. Using original data and analysis, Smyth demonstrates how even weak political opposition can force autocratic incumbents to rethink strategy and find compromises in order to win elections. Smyth challenges conventional notions about Putin's regime, highlighting the vast resources the Kremlin expends to maintain a permanent campaign to construct regime-friendly majorities. These tactics include disinformation as well as symbolic politics, social benefits, repression, and falsification. This book reveals the stresses and challenges of maintaining an electoral authoritarian regime and provides a roadmap to understand how seemingly stable authoritarian systems can fall quickly to popular challenges even when the opposition is weak. A must-read for understanding Russia's future and the role of elections in contemporary autocratic regimes.
In a path-breaking study of Russian elections, Regina Smyth reveals how much electoral competition matters to the Putin regime and how competition leaves Russia more vulnerable to opposition challenges than is perceived in the West. Using original data and analysis, Smyth demonstrates how even weak political opposition can force autocratic incumbents to rethink strategy and find compromises in order to win elections. Smyth challenges conventional notions about Putin's regime, highlighting the vast resources the Kremlin expends to maintain a permanent campaign to construct regime-friendly majorities. These tactics include disinformation as well as symbolic politics, social benefits, repression, and falsification. This book reveals the stresses and challenges of maintaining an electoral authoritarian regime and provides a roadmap to understand how seemingly stable authoritarian systems can fall quickly to popular challenges even when the opposition is weak. A must-read for understanding Russia's future and the role of elections in contemporary autocratic regimes.
World Affairs Online
In: Russian analytical digest: (RAD), Heft 266, S. 17-19
ISSN: 1863-0421
In: Russian politics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 1-5
ISSN: 2451-8913
World Affairs Online
In: Russian politics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 91-111
ISSN: 2451-8913
World Affairs Online
In: Russian politics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 1-5
ISSN: 2451-8921
Abstract
The articles in this issue explore the longer-term implications of Russia's 2020 Constitutional Reform process. Assessing constitutional change from different theoretical and empirical approaches, these authors find that the constitution largely codified the status-quo as it had evolved over the past decade. The resulting institutional changes solidified the personalist political system that concentrates power in one leader. These reforms also created new mechanisms to preclude elite defection and generate societal quiescence. At the same time, the three-staged reform process that included formal adoption, national vote, and legal reconciliation, introduced new political risk by raising societal expectations, reinforcing cleavages through patriotic legitimization strategies, introducing new rigid structures, and relying on personalism and networks over institutional governance. These risks do not predict state failure but they suggest new challenges that will continue to shape Russian political development.
In: Russian politics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 91-111
ISSN: 2451-8921
Abstract
Viewed through the lens of social policy, Russia's 2020 constitutional reform codifies existing priorities without addressing the issues that have fragmented the meaning of social citizenship. Placing these changes in theoretical and historical context, we identify the core causes of inequity in the social welfare system, the sustained gap between state promises, and Russians' lived experience. Our case studies highlight the sources of shared social grievances and the obstacles to national collective action that maintain stability in the facing of increased localized protest actions. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of observing the opposing forces of continuity and change in Russian politics as they define and redefine the meaning of social citizenship.
In: Russian analytical digest: (RAD), Band 246, S. 4-5
ISSN: 1863-0421
World Affairs Online
In: Social science quarterly, Band 101, Heft 5, S. 1712-1727
ISSN: 1540-6237
ObjectiveIt is widely argued that a primary source of legislative deadlock in America is the combination of a secular increase in polarization, combined with constitutional provisions that divide law‐making power across branches. We argue that polarization affects productivity, but only given a particular pattern of divided government. We distinguish between split branches, where a president from one party faces a Congress controlled by the other, and split chambers, where each party controls one house of Congress.MethodsMultivariate analysis of enactment data from post‐War Congresses, augmented by data on House and Senate Uncovered Sets.ResultsEnactments of major legislation are less likely given split chambers compared to the other options and polarization has no impact after controlling for these factors.ConclusionThese results redefine the conditions under which polarization drives deadlock. They also explain why the increase in polarization over the last two decades has until recently had little impact on major enactments.
In: Problems of post-communism, Band 68, Heft 1, S. 1-16
ISSN: 1557-783X