The Politics of SubNational Authoritarianism Russia in Comparative
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism: Russia in Comparative Perspective Vladimir Gel’man (European University at St. Petersburg / University of Helsinki) International Workshop Comparative Methods in History and Social Sciences Perm, Center for Comparative History and Political Science, September 2013
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • “[City council deputy K. ] arrived 11 minutes late for a meeting Tuesday morning of the council committee on traffic and public safety, of which he is chairman. The committee had a sizeable agenda, 286 items in all to consider. [K. ] took up the first item. For the record, he dictated to the committee secretary that [city council deputy A. ] moved and [city council deputy B. ] seconded its approval, and then, without calling for a vote, he declared the motion passed. Neither mover nor seconder had opened his mouth. He followed the same procedure on six more proposals, again without a word from the aldermen whose names appeared in the record. Then he put 107 items into one bindle for passage, and 172 more into another for rejection, again without a voice other than his own having been heard. • Having disposed of this mountain of details in exactly ten minutes [K. ] walked out. The [deputies] he had quoted so freely, without either their concurrence or their protest, sat around looking stupid. Most likely they are". • (a report of the local newspaper about the city council meeting)
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Report from Chicago Tribune, 13 April 1955 (quoted in Banfield, Wilson, 1963: 105) • Chicago – a classical example of «political machine» under Mayor Richard Daley, 1955 -76 (his son, Richard Daley Jr. , serves as a mayor of Chicago since 1989). • «Political machines» (USA, Southern Italy, Asia, Latin America) – examples of «sub-national authoritarianism» (SNA) as a constellation of localization of politics and governance and monopolistic control over political process and policy-making (patron-client relationships as a “glue” for political machines); • SNA was a short-term experience for some countries, but in other states and nations it became embedded for the long run; • What we might learn about SNA in contemporary Russia from its placing into cross-national comparative perspective? And what we might learn about SNA from an analysis of Russia’s experience?
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • SNA in post-Soviet Russia: • 1990 s – spontaneous regionalization of the country and decentralization of reforms of regional and local government; • The establishment of local political monopolies that hinders democratic institution building and market reforms (high level of diversity of local regimes); • 2000 s – recentralization of the Russian state, the encroachment of nation-wide companies into local markets, elimination of popular elections of regional chief executives, dominant status of United Russia (UR); • The decline of diversity of local regimes and their autonomy from the central government, but still political monopolies
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • In theoretical and comparative perspective, SNA is considered as an obstacle toward political modernization: • In US history, SNA was a stage of the long-term political evolution – a «life cycle» of «political machines» in US cities in 1870 -1930 -s (Scott, 1969) was incomplete or broken in many Third World countries; • SNA as an institutional trap of political modernization in some countries of Asia and Latin America, where many SNA regimes survived and continued regardless nationwide political developments due to effective «boundary control» (Gibson, 2005)
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • The strategy of «boundary control» by local political leaders: (1) patrimonial local rule; (2) nation-wide political influence of local political leaders; and (3) monopolization of center-periphery linkages by local political leaders (Gibson, 2005); • Two ways of demise of SNA regimes – «bottom-up» (by reformist movement in the US) or «top-down» (by central governments); • Major tools of demise of SNA regimes – (1) apparatus of the central state and (2) nation-wide political parties • BUT! The same means could be used not only for demise of SNA regimes, but for their continuity
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… Local influence of the apparatus of the central state Weak Local influence of national political parties Strong Weak or absent Strong No empirical cases Centralized party-based SNA (Southern Italy 1950 -80 s, USSR, Russia after mid-2000 s) Decentralized SNA (USA 1870 -1930 s, Russia 1991 – mid -2000 s) Centralized bureaucratic SNA (pre 1917 Russia, Belarus, Uzbekistan)
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • A typology of SNA: • 1) centralized bureaucratic SNA – self-enforced regime, which could be undermined due to special policy of the central government or due to collapse of the nation-wide political regime; • 2) decentralized SNA – a partial equilibrium, which could be undermined on both «bottom-up» and «top-down» manner; • 3) centralized party-based SNA – a local dominance of nation-wide dominant party, which could be undermined only on «top-down» manner as a by-product of collapse of the nation-wide political regime
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Pre-1991 Soviet-style SNA in Russia – the «point of departure» of post-Soviet SNA: • Centralized party-based governance coexisted with effects of «departmentalism» and «localism» ; • Regional first secretaries of the Communist Party – «Soviet prefects» (Hough, 1969), who were able to maintain «boundary control» ; • Patrimonial rue and maximization of political control at the local and regional level; • Political influence of local/regional leaders in national politics (hidden regional lobbyism); • Monopolization of linkages between regions and nation-wide economic and political actors (the rise of principal-agent problems in late-Soviet politics); • «Path-dependency» effects on formation and evolution of SNA in post-Soviet regions and cities
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Decentralized SNA in Russia in 1990 s: • Spontaneous devolution of powers and resources from central to regional and local governments; • Transformation recession and the decline of «departmentalism» in governance in major economic sectors; • The rise of influence of local/regional elites in regional economic governance ( «closed local markets» ); • Inconsistent federal politics of institution-building toward regions and localities; • Decentralized SNA widely perceived as an obstacle toward political and economic transformation in Russia
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Major features of decentralized SNA regimes of 1990 s in Russia: • Social bases – dependent population (public sector’s «byudzhetniki» , pensioners, local/regional-based businesses, organized crime groups); • In some republics – «ethnocracy» (ethnic-based dominance); • Non-party-based nature of SNA; • The rise of influence of local/regional elites in national politics (the role of Fatherland-All Russia in 1999 parliamentary elections); • The reaction of the central government – «selective appeasement» (Treisman, 1999) – political loyalty for fiscal transfers
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • 2000 s – the shift from decentralized to centralized SNA: co-optation of local elites and integration of local-based «political machines» into the nation-wide «political machine» under UR’s umbrella; • Federal reform – a federal response on crisis of 1990 s (administrative, economic, and institutional recentralization); • Institutional changes as a tool of recentralization of SNA (reform of regional electoral systems, elimination of popular elections of regional chief executives and – in many instances – of city mayors; • The new «informal contract» between federal and local/regional elites with the use of UR as an additional tool of control
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Centralized party-based SNA of 2000 s: back in USSR? • Regions and cities are governed by top-down appointed officials (with the formal approval by local/regional elites); • Non-competitive nature of political process in almost all Russia’s regions and cities; • Relationships between state and economic actors in regions – «state-led corporatism» , a partial revival of «departmentalism» ; • The rise of principal-agent problems in intergovernmental relations (federal – regional - local governments)
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Decentralized SNA of 1990 s in Russia – a part of protracted «growing pains» ; • Centralized party-based SNA of 2000 s in Russia – a symptom of chronic decease? • 2011 “cracks” and 2012 return to popular elections of regional chief executives in Russia: pendulum swings back or cosmetic changes? • The lack of incentives for undermining SNA on «top-down» manner (by the central government) and the lack of agents of undermining SNA on «bottom-up» manner (on the local/regional level); • Effects of institutional legacies of both Soviet and post-Soviet periods; • Patron-client ties: entrenchment under continuity of SNA • SNA as an institutional trap for Russia?
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Short-terms prospects of SNA in Russia (if the nationwide political regime keep continuing over time) – merely preservation and possible stagnation; • Mid-terms prospects of the SNA in Russia – increasing pressure: • Pressure «from above» - the central government will need more efficient regional and local governance; • Pressure «from below» - the rise of inter-regional/local and intra-regional/local inequality and the emergence of autonomous local-based pressure groups (an equivalent of «reformist movement» ); • Pressure «from outside» - due to the rise of international engagement of Russia’s regions and cities
The Politics of Sub-National Authoritarianism… • Thanks for your attention! • Comments are welcome (gelman@eu. spb. ru)
- Slides: 16