Hegemonic Party’s Role in Cooptation of Opposition: The Case Of United Russia Party

Abstract

In electoral authoritarian regimes, the cooptation of the opposition is one of the most frequently used management techniques. The cooptation can be carried out not only through the personal relations of the autocrat, but also through the institution of the political party. The act of cooptation through a political party results in that party becoming a hegemonic party in national and subnational politics. In this study, we will consider United Russia, one of the most influential Hegemonic Parties of our time, and examine the electoral authoritarian regime established by Putin through it. The study will examine how United Russia became a "party of power", how it continued its cooptation strategy, and how it became a hegemonic party at the end of this process. The thesis of our study is that Putin made the United Russia a "party of power" with legal restrictions and coercion, thus laying the groundwork for the cooptation activity. Meanwhile, United Russia has provided regional elites with spoils and opportunities to access politics, thereby enabling them to become party members. As a result, within a period of 10 years, the overwhelming majority of the political elites were cooptated directly and indirectly, and the party turned into a hegemonic party. Thanks to United Russia, Putin also reduced the costs of administration, controlled the intra-party schisms, and neutralized the political elites that would lead the social opposition.

Keywords

• Cooptation
• Hegemonic Party
• United Russia
• Putin
• Electoral Authoritarianism.

Muhalefetin Devşirilmesinde Hegemonik Parti’nin Rolü: Birleşik Rusya Partisi Örneği

Abstract

Seçimli Otoriter rejimlerde, muhalefetin devşirilmesi en sık başvurulan yönetme tekniklerinden biridir. Devşirme faaliyeti salt otokratın kişisel ilişkileri üzerinden olabileceği gibi siyasal parti kurumu üzerinden de gerçekleşebilmektedir. Siyasal parti üzerinden gerçekleşen devşirme faaliyeti o partinin ulusal ve ulusaltı siyasette Hegemonik bir parti haline gelmesiyle sonuçlanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada günümüzün en etkili Hegemonik Partilerinden biri olan Birleşik Rusya ele alınacak ve onun aracılığıyla Putin’in kurmuş olduğu seçimli otoriter rejim incelenecektir. Çalışma Birleşik Rusya’nın nasıl “iktidar partisi” haline geldiğini, devşirme stratejisini nasıl sürdürdüğünü ve de bu süreç sonunda nasıl hegemonik bir parti konumuna eriştiğini irdeleyecektir. Çalışmamızın iddiası o dur ki, Putin yasal sınırlamalar ve zorlamalar ile Birleşik Rusya’yı “iktidar partisi” haline getirmiş ve böylece devşirme faaliyeti için zemini hazırlamıştır. Birleşik Rusya da bölgesel elitlere kaynak ve siyasaya erişme fırsatları sunarak onların parti üyesi olmasını sağlamıştır. Neticede 10 yıllık süreç içinde siyasal elitlerin kahir ekseriyeti doğrudan ve dolaylı yollarla devşirilmiş ve parti, hegemonik bir partiye dönüşmüştür. Putin de Birleşik Rusya sayesinde yönetme maliyetlerini düşürmüş, parti içi hizipleşmeleri kontrol altına almış ve toplumsal muhalefete önderlik edecek siyasi elitleri etkisizleştirmiştir.

Keywords

• Devşirme
• Hegemonik Parti
• Birleşik Rusya
• Putin
• Seçimli Otoriterlik.

References

1. Albrecht, H. (2005). How can opposition support authoritarianism? Lessons from Egypt. Democratization, 12(3), 378-397.
2. Arriola, L. R. (2009). Patronage and political stability in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 42(10), 1339-1362.
3. Aslund, A. (2019). Russia's Crony Capitalism. London: Yale University Press.
4. Alexander Baturo & Robert Elgie (2018) Why do authoritarian regimes adopt bicameralism? Cooptation, control, and masking controversial reforms, Democratization, 25:5, 919-937, DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2018.1444031
5. Buckles, G. T. (2019). Internal opposition dynamics and restraints on authoritarian control. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 883-900.
6. Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Buzin, A. (2012). Election Legislation: How Elections Became Manageable. Vedomosti. June 8.
8. Chaisty, P. (2013). The Federal Assembly and the power vertical. In Routledge handbook of Russian politics and society (pp. 102-111). London: Routledge.

9. Everett, J. (2022). Russia in the Putin era–a case of bureaucratic authoritarianism?. New Perspectives, 2336825X211061488.
10. Gandhi, J., & Przeworski, A. (2006). Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Economics & politics, 18(1), 1-26.
11. Gandhi, J., & Buckles, G. (2016, April). Opposition Unity and Cooptation in Hybrid Regimes. In Annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL (pp. 7-10).
12. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115-144.
13. Gel'man, V., & Ryzhenkov, S. (2011). Local regimes, sub-national governance and the ‘power vertical’in contemporary Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(3), 449-465.
14. Gerschewski, J. (2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13-38.
15. Golosov, G. V. (2011). The regional roots of electoral authoritarianism in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(4), 623-639.
16. Golosov, G. V. (2014). Co-optation in the process of dominant party system building: The case of Russia. East European Politics, 30(2), 271-285.
17. Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2015). How modern dictators survive: Cooptation, censorship, propaganda, and repression. SSRN Electronic Journal.
18. Hale, H. E. (2010). Russia’s Political Parties and their Substitutes. In White, Stephen (ed.) Developments in Russian Politics, 7, 81-98. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
19. Hyde, M. (2001). Putin's federal reforms and their implications for presidential power in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 53(5), 719-743.
20. Josua, M. (2016). Co-optation Reconsidered: Authoritarian Regime Legitimation Strategies in the Jordanian “Arab Spring.” Middle East Law and Governance, 8(1), 32–56. doi:10.1163/18763375-00801001
21. Konitzer, A., & Wegren, S. K. (2006). Federalism and political recentralization in the Russian Federation: United Russia as the party of power. Publius: The journal of federalism, 36(4), 503-522.
22. Kynev, A. (2008). Electoral reforms and democratization: Russian regional elections 2003–2006. In Federalism and Local Politics in Russia (pp. 120-149). Routledge.
23. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. London. Cambridge University Press.
24. Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Magaloni, B. (2008). Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4-5), 715-741.
26. McFaul, M., & Stoner-Weiss, K. (2010). Elections and voters. In White, Stephen (ed.).Developments in Russian Politics, 7, 62-80. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
27. Nandong, G. T. (2020). Cooptation or Repression: A Dynamic Model of Opposition Politics Under Dictatorships. Draft Paper, Princeton University (pp.1-38). https://tchakountenandong.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/tchakountenandong/files/opposition_politics.pdf
28. Oğuz, M. C. (2021). Rekabetçi Otoriter Rejimlerde Ulusaltı Seçimlerin ve Ulusaltı Siyasetin Önemi: Meksika’dan PAN Örneği. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 135-155.
29. Panov, P., & Ross, C. (2013). Patterns of electoral contestation in Russian regional assemblies: Between" competitive" and" hegemonic" authoritarianism. Demokratizatsiya, 21(3), 369.
30. Reuter, O. J., & Remington, T. F. (2009). Dominant party regimes and the commitment problem: The case of United Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 42(4), 501-526.
31. Reuter, O. J. (2011). United Russia and the 2011 elections. Russian Analytical Digest, 102(2), 6.
32. Reuter, O. J., & Robertson, G. B. (2015). Legislatures, cooptation, and social protest in contemporary authoritarian regimes. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 235-248.
33. Reuter, O. J. (2017). The origins of dominant parties: Building authoritarian institutions in post-Soviet Russia. London. Cambridge University Press.
34. Roberts, T. (2017). Under What Conditions Does Co-optation Deter Violent Overthrow?. http://www.scpi.politicaldata.org/SCPIXII/Roberts.pdf
35. Robinson, N. (2017). Russian neo-patrimonialism and Putin’s ‘cultural turn’. Europe-Asia Studies, 69(2), 348-366.
36. Ross, C. (2010). From constitutional to political asymmetry: Crafting authoritarian regimes in Russia’s regions and republics. In Federalism and democratisation in Russia (pp. 157-171). Manchester University Press.
37. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Sharafutdinova, G. (2010). Political consequences of crony capitalism inside Russia. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
39. Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Teague, E. (2014). Russia's Return to the Direct Election of Governors: Re-Shaping the Power Vertical?. Region: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, 3(1), 37-57.
41. Turovsky, R. (2014). Opposition parties in hybrid regimes: between repression and co-optation: The case of Russia's regions. Perspectives on European politics and society, 15(1), 68-87.