POLITICAL LEGITIMACY IN UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES: THE CASE OF
RUSSIA
PhD position, Institute for History, Faculty of Humanities
Profile area ‘Political Legitimacy’
1. General Information
André W.M. Gerrits, Prof. Dr.
Institute for History, Leiden University
+31.71.527-2949
[email protected]
2. Research proposal
Research Issue and Questions
This research project deals with the issue of political legitimacy in non-democratic
regimes. The research aims to trace, explain and compare how ‘democratic’ arguments,
institutions and procedures are being employed, manipulated and perceived by rulers and
electorates in hybrid or semi-authoritarian regimes,1 i.e. in political settings which are
essentially authoritarian though not without a meaningful element of pluralism and
contestation. The research takes Russia, arguably the most powerful and geopolitically
relevant semi-authoritarian state, as a case study, but also aims to contribute to debates
about legitimacy in undemocratic contexts in general.
The main question this research aims to answer is: how does democratic legitimacy work
under conditions of semi-authoritarianism? To answer this question, a distinction could
be made between institutional / legal and ideational dimensions of political legitimacy.
The institutional aspect of legitimacy questions the role and relevance of ‘democratic’
institutions and procedures in a semi-authoritarian context (political parties, elections,
legislatures, judiciary), while the ideational dimension inquires about the ideas and
arguments which inspire, guide and validate these institutions and procedures. In this
context the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ in the Russian Federation may be relevant.
Sovereign democracy was coined during the last decade as the quintessential Russian
alternative to the allegedly universal (Western) idea of liberal democracy (Okara, 2008;
Polyakov, 2007; Surkov, 2006). While sovereign democracy has not evolved into a fullfledged national ideology, its underlying ideas and arguments are of great significance for
1
The discussion on ‘hybrid’ political regimes is arguably one of the most important recent developments in
comparative politics. The phenomenon of hybrid or semi-authoritarian regimes is linked to post-Cold War
political development, and relates to regimes that democratized only partially or that went through
processes of regression after initial democratic change, eventually combining aspects of democracy and
authoritarianism (Diamond, 2002; Levitsky and Way, 2010).
1
Russia’s self-perception (and the policies arising from it) and for how the country is
viewed by others.
Semi-authoritarianism and political legitimacy
Russia is among a growing number of semi-authoritarian states. The idea of adding
qualifying adjectives to ‘authoritarianism’2 is to indicate that these regimes employ
political rhetoric, institutions, and procedures which are not typically associated with
authoritarianism, but mostly with democracy. We hypothesize that these ‘democratic’
features cannot be simply understood as an exercise in façade building. They may serve
various purposes: a declaratory role, a governing function (to rule more effectively) and /
or a legitimizing one (Gerrits, 2010).
In large parts of the non-Western world, the amount of semi-authoritarian countries
exceeds that of democracies.3 This is often seen as being part of a larger process of
democratic reversal.4 The authoritarian turn in Russian politics from the mid-1990s is
indeed comparable with the political trajectory in other countries that were once part of
the ‘third wave of democratization’ (Huntington, 1993). However, in Russia and in an
increasing number of other countries, democracy is not simply being replaced by
politically closed authoritarian rule. Aspects of democracy and authoritarianism are being
combined. They coincide, albeit uneasily. Scholars struggle with the conceptualization of
these essentially novel political regimes that have adopted various attributes of
democracy, but which operate in a decidedly non-democratic manner.
Political legitimacy concerns the recognition of the right to rule (Gilley, 2009). The claim
of legitimacy rests on popular consent, and it is commonly linked with democratic
politics. Our research, however, starts from the hypothesis that legitimacy may also be
considered an important, though under-researched variable of non-democratic rule.
Legitimacy may be associated with various form of political organization—democratic as
well as non-democratic. At the heart of this research is the apparent tension between
undemocratic rule and democratic legitimacy. In the cases that legitimacy is being
considered as a relevant variable of non-democratic regimes, it is most commonly
perceived in instrumental terms.
The research will adopt a comparative perspective on the issue of legitimacy in
undemocratic states. It will not only shed light on the nature of the post-communist
political order in Russia but will also deliver a valuable contribution to the wider
scholarly debate on legitimacy in the absence of democracy. The comparison will
2
Authoritarianism with adjectives is as widely used today as democracy with adjectives (Collier and
Levitsky, 1997) before. Russia and other countries have been labeled as ‘electoral’ (Schedler 2006),
‘plebiscitarian’ (Rose et al., 2006), and more generally ‘competitive’ authoritarian (Levitsky and Way,
2010).
3
Levitsky and Way, 2010, discuss 35 semi- or competitive authoritarian regimes from Latin America,
Europe and Asia.
4
See Huntington, 1993, for earlier processes of democratic regression; see Diamond, 2008, for the current
one.
2
concentrate on regimes which are similarly understood as semi-authoritarian and which,
like Russia, have proposed a conception of democracy that is explicitly opposed to the
liberal variant.
Relevance for profile area ‘Political legitimacy’
This research aims to contribute to our insight into two issues of increasing academic and
political / societal interest:
* the workings of semi-authoritarianisms as an increasingly important form of
government; and, subsequently
* the manifestations of political legitimacy in non-democratic political settings.
Given the growing number of semi-authoritarian regimes in today’s world, the issue of
popular legitimacy under non-democratic conditions seems increasingly relevant. As yet,
however, political legitimacy is predominantly researched within the context of
democratic politics, whether at the level of the nation state or beyond. This project adds
nuance to this democratic ‘bias’ of much legitimacy research.
In the rapidly expanding scholarly research on authoritarianism the issue of political
legitimacy has remained practically absent.5 Most analyses of semi-authoritarian regimes
tend to be couched in dichotomous terms as conflict or contradiction between state and
society. We do not a priori reject this explanation, but we believe that it is a
simplification, and we bring it up for discussion.
This also relates to the link between legitimacy and political stability or change. Semiauthoritarian regimes are considered to be more volatile than either democracies or full
dictatorships (Brownlee, 2007; Huntington, 1993; Levitsky and Way, 2002). Instability
typically follows from the inherently contradictory nature of these regimes: the
combination of authoritarian practices with principally democratic institutions and
procedures. ‘Authoritarian regimes may coexist indefinitely with meaningful democratic
institutions’, Levitsky and Way (2002, p.58) argue, but ‘the coexistence of democratic
rules and autocratic methods (…) creates an inherent source of instability.’ The tension
between institutions and identities may nowhere be more evident than in the case of semiauthoritarianism—the ‘democratic’ features of the regime, designed to strengthen it, may
actually weaken and undermine it.
The project will recruit a PhD researcher who has proven affinity with contemporary
international politics, at least basic familiarity with Russian history, and who is
comfortable with conducting research on the intersection of political science and history.
In addition, the prospective researcher will have advanced Russian language skills as well
as a high degree of proficiency in English.
5
Cf. Bunce, 2010; Dryzek, 2002; Elster, 1998; Gandhi, 2008, among other works.
3
References:
Brownlee, Jason 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Bunce, Valerie et al. (2010), Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Postcommunist World. New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky (1997), ‘Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation
in Comparative Research’, World Politics, 49 (April), pp. 430-451.
Diamond, Larry J. (2002), ‘Thinking about Hybrid Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 13, 2, pp.
21-35.
--- (2008), The Spirit of Democracy. The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World.
New York, Times Books.
Elster, Jon, et al., Institutional design in Pos-Communist Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gandhi, Jennifer (2008), Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Gerrits, André W.M. (2010), ‘Exploring Democracy in the Russian Federation: Political Regime,
Public Opinion and International Assistance’, Contemporary Politics, 16, pp. 33-48.
Gilley, Bruce (2009), The Right to Rule. How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York:
Columbia Press.
Hahn, Jeffrey W. (1993), ‘Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture’, in: Frederic J.
Fleron, Jr. and Erik P. Hoffmann, Post-Communist Studies and Political Science. Methodology
and Empirical Theory in Sovietology. Boulder, Westview Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1993), The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
Jackson, Robert (1999), ‘Sovereignty in World Politics: a Glance at the Conceptual and Historical
Landscape’. Political Studies XLVII, pp. 431–56
Krastev, Ivan (2007), ‘Rossiya kak Drugaya Evropa’. Rossia v Global’noy Politike no.4.
Levitsky, Steven and Lucan A. Way (2002), ‘The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’,
Journal of Democracy, 13 (April) 2, 51-65.
--- (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Okara, Andrei (2008), ‘Sovereign Democracy: A New Russian Idea or a PR Project?’ Russia in
Global Affairs no.3
4
Polyakov, Leonid (ed.) (2007), Pro Suverennuyu Demokratiyu. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Evropa
Rose, Richard et al. (2002), Russia Transformed: Developing Popular Support for a New Regime.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Schedler, Andreas (2006), Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition.
London, Lynne Rynner.
Surkov, Vladislav (2006), ‘Natsionalizatsiya Budushchego. Paragrafy pro Suverennuyu
Demokratiyu’. Ekspert no. 43.
5