Authoritarian Modernization in Russia

Abstract

This issue of Demokratizatsiya presents some of the first results for a research project entitled "Choices of Russian Modernization" organized by the Finnish Center of Excellence in Russian Studies. (1) While Russia has by 2014 abandoned the very discourse of modernization, which was so popular during Dmitry Medvedev's presidency (2008-12), the time is ripe to discuss the continuing need for modernization in Russia after the Soviet collapse and its likely consequences. The idea of achieving major economic and social advances in Russia without free and fair political competition formed the essence of the post-Soviet modernization project. Indeed, the outcomes of this project so far have been rather mixed. Even though in the 2000s Russia experienced impressive economic growth after a period of deep and protracted recession, these successes did not produce any major institutional changes which could bolster the rule of law, good governance, and protection of human rights. No wonder that developments in Russia following the annexation of Crimea and the increasing confrontation with the West call into question the entire project of authoritarian modernization. Analyzing the politics and policies of Russia's post-Soviet authoritarian modernization is important not only for answering the eternal Russian question "Who is to be blamed?" It is also relevant for assessing Russia's prospects. The contributors whose articles are published here deal with a wide range of issues, but they focused on the role of choices made by Russian actors under certain structural conditions. The interests, ideas, and perceptions of the various actors affected these choices, but they also often resulted in unintended consequences, given the many uncertainties of the Russian political, economic, and social landscape. Thus, the implementation of the "authoritarian modernization" project was far from its ideals: dictatorial trends in Russia increased over time while economic and social well-being faced rising challenges and constraints. The contributions to this issue elaborate this common theme in a range of different contexts. Vladimir Gel'man's article, "The Rise and Decline of Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia," analyzes the logic of regime change in post-Soviet Russia. It argues that the rise of electoral authoritarianism was a side effect of the failure of democratization launched in the late Soviet period. This reverse tide distorted Russia's main democratic institutions, which the Kremlin used as tools of political legitimation and mimicry. But even though it is well entrenched today, electoral authoritarianism itself is vulnerable due to numerous challenges, which will affect its further trajectory, though in unpredictable ways. Against this political background, the subsequent articles dealt with reforms in specific policy areas in Russia. In their article, "Paradoxes of Agency: Democracy and Welfare in Russia," Meri Kulmala, Markus Kainu, Jouko Nikula and Markku Kivinen analyzed the inconsistency of social policy reforms. Despite the authorities' loud rhetoric, which claimed that building a welfare state was a top priority, in fact, social policies turned out to be a loose set of incoherent and poorly coordinated measures, which contributed to rather diverse outcomes. The authors focused on the fundamental political problems of social policy-making in Russia, such as the lack of democratic accountability, the biased system of interest representation, and the bureaucratic inefficiency, both on national and subnational level. …