Federalism and Electoral Authoritarianism under Putin

Abstract

Abstract: Throughout its short history, federal relations in Russia have been dominated by extra-legal political and economic relations rather than constitutionalism and rule of law. The Russian Federation's unique blend of constitutional, socioeconomic, and political asymmetry, far from promoting democracy, has bolstered authoritarian regimes in regions. Federalism and regional democracy have also been thwarted by weakness of Russia's civic culture and lack of federal and democratic tradition. Regional in particular have more often supported authoritarianism than democracy. Under Putin principles of federalism and democracy have come under attack and electoral authoritarianism is norm rather exception, particularly in ethnic republics. Key words: democratization, electoral authoritarianism, federalism ********** In December 1993, Russia ratified its first postcommunist constitution that, in Article 1, proclaimed that it was a democratic federative rule of law state with republican form of government. However, there are now major concerns about current regime's commitment to principles of federalism. Since inauguration of Vladimir Putin as Russian president in May 2000, federalism and democracy have come under attack. We have witnessed concerted effort to rein in power of regional governors and to centralize power under presidency. As I demonstrate in this article, major challenge to Russian state today is not confederalism or threat of ethnic disintegration, but rather defederalization and creation of centralized and authoritarian state under Putin. The problems of federalization in Russia are rooted in country's centuries-long history of authoritarian rule and absence of federal and democratic tradition. The 1993 constitution provided Russia with all of major institutional prerequisites necessary for However, as Elazar stresses, True federal systems manifest their federalism in culture as well as constitutional and structural ways and the viability of federal systems is directly related to degree to which federalism has been internalized culturally within particular civil (1) Moreover, as Watts stresses, federalism requires legal democratic culture with recognition of supremacy of constitution over all orders of government. (2) However, as Kempton notes, although Russia inherited federal structure, it did not inherit federal (3) The Russian state that emerged out of ashes of Soviet Union in January 1992 was bequeathed highly authoritarian political culture and weak and inchoate civil society. Nor was there any genuine tradition of federalism that leadership could call upon to support it in its new statebuilding strategy. Although USSR was formally and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was within federation, in reality, Soviet federalism was sham. As Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary of Communist Party), admitted in 1989, to now our state has existed as centralized and unitary state and none of us has yet experience of living in federation. (4) Federalism also requires support of political elites. However, collapse of communism in 1991 did not lead to democratic circulation of elites in Russia. On contrary, nomenklatura continuity was norm, particularly in ethnic regions where former communist were able to utilize ethnic card to win and hold on to power. Postcommunist have used federalism primarily as smokescreen for promotion of their own narrow political and economic interests and as shield behind which to carve out electoral dictatorships. Russia's weak and fragmented party system has also hindered development of federalism. Up until elections of December 2003, only minority of parties in lower house of Russian parliament (the Duma) had nationwide organizations to glue federation together, and many of key parties had been hostile to Russia's ethnoterritorial form of federalism. …