Putin's United Russia Party

Roberts, Sean

doi:10.4324/9780203180914

Cited by 30 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Наличие «партии власти» как партии парламентского большинства ведет к максимизации влияния президента на законотворческий процесс (Голосов и Лихтенштейн, 2001). Одной из функций доминирующей партии является представление интересов режима при выработке политики (Roberts, 2012). Под доминирующей партией подразумевают партию в недемократическом государстве, которая контролирует доступ ко многим, но не обязательно ко всем, важным политическим должностям, разделяет полномочия по выработке политики и распределению патронажа, а также использует привилегированный доступ к государственным ресурсам для поддержания своей позиции у власти (Reuter & Turovsky, 2014: 666).…”

Section: теоретические соображения и рабочие гипотезыunclassified

Determinants of Legislative Effectiveness of Russian Deputies: Empirical Analysis

Mukhametov

2023

Вест. ПГУ. Полит.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article evaluates the legislative effectiveness of parliamentarians in Russia. The author seeks to find answers to the question: what factors determine the legislative effectiveness of deputies? The article presents the results of assessing the impact of membership in the parliamentary majority party, formal status in the internal parliamentary hierarchy, work experience in legislatures, as well as legal education on legislative success. The study is grounded on the data on the "effectiveness" of deputies of two regional parliaments – St. Petersburg and the Kirov region. The work is based on regression analysis. The results of the study show that membership in the majority party, a position of a chairman of the committee or a leader of the majority party, as well as the previous experience in the legislative sphere are factors influencing the legislative success of a parliamentarian. Also, legislative efficiency rises with an increase of a deputy's term in office. The author concludes that the institutional characteristics that make some deputies more effective legislators than others are crucial for the development of a more profound understanding of political representation and public policy-making.

show abstract

Section: теоретические соображения и рабочие гипотезыunclassified

Determinants of Legislative Effectiveness of Russian Deputies: Empirical Analysis

Mukhametov

2023

Вест. ПГУ. Полит.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of ideologically established parties, and of competition between them (reflecting an artificial parliamentarism), as well as the lack of durable collective action among citizens (reflecting a weak civil society), has hindered the development of any ideologically-based rule, either democratic, authoritarian or fascist (Hanson 2006;kailitz & Umland 2010;Roberts 2012;Gel'man 2013Gel'man , 2015. According to Stephen Hanson, since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has been not only a weak democracy but also a weak autocracy (Hanson 2007).…”

Section: Representational Crisis In Putin's Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Aleksei Naval’nyi and Populist Re-ordering of Putin’s Stability

Lassila¹

2016

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More importantly, any discussion of the Internet as an ideal medium to further party goals needs to bear in mind the fact that the goals of Russian parties are by no means clear. So far, Russia has persisted with a 'professional government' that is not formed by the winners of parliamentary elections, but by the Prime Minister nominated by the President, meaning that even the dominant United Russia has had little success in translating previous parliamentary majorities into government control (Roberts 2012a). If election winners do not form government and if opposition parties are not seriously promoting alternatives to the prevailing regime, then in theoretical terms at least, these parties resist the usual means-end goals analysis typical for vote and office seeking parties.…”

Section: Counter-incentives: the Russian Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Campaigning in Russia: Evidence from the 2011 StateDumaElection

Roberts

2015

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the continuing growth of Internet use in Russia, there remains little systematic analysis of online election campaigning. This article presents an in-depth, multi-method analysis of party and candidate online activity during the 2011 State Duma election campaign-arguably Russia's first 'Internet election'to ascertain the extent to which new social media is changing politics in Russia. The main findings indicate that the Internet did indeed help to level the competitive playing field during the election campaign period, but despite the growing number of Internet users, the overall level of on-line engagement remained weak. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the Aleksanteri Institute, Finland, for a two-month research stay in 2011/12. during the official 'intensive campaign' period (November 6-December 3 2011). Although primarily concerned with supply-side issuesthe way parties utilised the Internet for their campaignsthis article also considers demand-side issues, including engagement with party and candidate social media by Internet users. The first part of this article provides essential background, including a discussion of the factors limiting or encouraging online campaigning for this election. Part two then examines the scope of internet use during the campaign, presenting analysis of 910 candidates competing on party lists in 20 regions across the Russian Federation. Part three provides detailed analysis of candidate use of LiveJournal and Twitter social networks. The conclusion and substantive argument forwarded in this article is that even though United Russia and its candidates enjoyed a clear superiority in web-presence over its competitors, there was none the less evidence of equalisation, as the online message of the remaining party candidates converged on an anti-United Russia theme. However, while providing a rare platform for opposition to launch, at times, vitriolic attacks against United Russia and the authorities, there was little evidence that candidates were using social networking sites to directly interact with and mobilise the electorate. At the same time, the overall weak engagement by candidates with social media during the campaign period was matched by an equally weak engagement with partisan sites by Internet users. Taken together, this questions the overall impact of the online campaign and raises questions as to the real potential of the Internet to affect political change in Russia. What to expect online? Mixed messages leading into the campaign Although there is documented use of the internet by Russian parties as far back as the 1999 State Duma election (Semetko & Krasnoboka 2003), the fact that user numbers have lagged behind European and North American levels means that research on political parties and the Internet remains largely confined to the latter, although with increasing exceptions from other parts of the world, in particular from Asia (see Kluver et al. 2007; Tkach-Kawasaki; Wang 2010, etc.). In the Russian case, the 2011 State Duma election stakes a claim...

show abstract

Putin's United Russia Party

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Determinants of Legislative Effectiveness of Russian Deputies: Empirical Analysis

Determinants of Legislative Effectiveness of Russian Deputies: Empirical Analysis

Aleksei Naval’nyi and Populist Re-ordering of Putin’s Stability

Online Campaigning in Russia: Evidence from the 2011 StateDumaElection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About