Party of Power and Sys temic Opp osi tion in the State Duma: diff erences in the structure of Russi a’s territorial im age

Abstract

Abstract. Introduction: the legislative speeches at plenary sessions in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation provide rich material for analyzing deputy’s ideas about the world arrangement, including the issues of territorial and political nature. The latter are of interest because they are a kind of gateway to the “real world” in which real people and organizations live and operate in specific localities and territories. It can be assumed that with regard to the parties represented in the State Duma, their place in the partypolitical system is one of the factors of differences in Russia’s territorial image. The period under analysis covers the time between the State Duma’s 4th and 7th convocation (2003–2021), characterized by the formation of a fairly stable party-political system with the dominance of “United Russia” party and the representation of three parties of systemic opposition in the lower house of the Russian parliament. Objectives: to identify the differences between the factions of the State Duma in the volume and structure of references to geographical objects. Methods: “Natasha” library tools for analyzing natural language text based on deep learning methods, the OpenStreetMap automatic geocoding system, and content analysis. Results: compared to other factions, “United Russia” refers less to geographical entities in relation to the total speaking volume of its deputies. At the same time, the mention of Russia and everything “geographically” connected with it has a more abstract, that is, high-level character among “United Russia” members. This is manifested, at least, in two ways. Firstly, “United Russia” deputies talk less about geographic objects of the regional level and below. Secondly, in their general reference to specific regions, they are much more likely, compared to other factions’ deputies, to limit themselves by only naming the region. In other words, systemic opposition deputies talk more about towns and localities “within” regions. Conclusions: The territorial image of the country in the “United Russia” rhetoric significantly differs from the other factions’ image in the level of its abstraction. This may be explained by the role of “United Russia” as the party of power, i.e. the instrument of presidential dominance in parliament. Being politically dominant, it bears the main administrative burden in the Duma processes. This reduces its incentive for using the rhetoric that opens up the gateways to the “real world”.