Parliamentary Elections in Russia: A Quarter-Century of Multiparty Politics by Derek S. Hutcheson (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
REVIEWS 791 However, due to the prominence of the global history perspective, a more detailed engagement was needed with that historical trend. A more elaborate historiographical response — maybe in a concluding chapter — would have helped the reader situate the volume more accurately in the emerging scholarship on 1968. Trinity College Dublin Balázs Apor Hutcheson, Derek S. Parliamentary Elections in Russia: A Quarter-Century of Multiparty Politics. British Academy Monographs. The British Academy and Oxford University Press, London, Oxford and New York, 2018. xix + 326 pp. Tables. Notes. Appendix. Bibliography. Table of laws and decrees. Index. £65.00. How have Russian State Duma elections varied between 1993 and 2016? In this book, Derek S. Hutcheson — a leading scholar on Russian elections — provides a meticulous analysis of the shifting electoral landscape in post-Soviet Russia. The book contains nine chapters. Following an introductory chapter and an overview chapter (that surveys the broad changes in electoral politics from the late Soviet period to the seventh State Duma election, including discussions of key actors in the party system and the shifting role of the State Duma), the third chapter discusses the Russian electoral system, including the frequent reforms to it. The fourth chapter then looks at the party system, charting the transition from the ‘floating’ party system of the 1990s to the ‘cartel’ party system emergent from the early- to mid-2000s. Chapter five examines how political marketing has evolved, as well as how media coverage of party campaigns has varied both by party and over time. The sixth chapter turns to voter mobilization, including discussions of the use of ‘administrative resources’, turnout patterns and motivations for (non-)voting. The seventh chapter looks in more detail at voting behaviour, including analysing voting variation across Russian regions and discussing party identification, as well as the reasons for electoral discontent. The final substantive chapter discusses the question of electoral legitimacy, evaluating both evidence of electoral subversion and perceptions of legitimacy in the eyes of both Russian voters and international observers. The key attractions of the book are its sustained diachronic analysis of the full set of State Duma elections; its discussion of discrete stages of elections, from electoral laws to behaviour at the ballot box; and the impressive level of detail provided. By giving a long-term view of federal-level legislative elections, Hutcheson underscores the point that the State Duma’s current status as ‘a SEER, 97, 4, OCTOBER 2019 792 compliant part of the political “machine”’ (p. 5) is ‘not by chance’ (p. 3) — rather, a ‘considerable degree of institutional engineering […] has gone into creating’ this state of affairs (p. 5). In other words, ‘the constitutional structure of Russia does not necessarily lead to domination of the legislature by the president’ (p. 75). The text is peppered with fascinating details, including the reason why United Russia’s symbol is a bear (p. 30) and an account of farcically frequent party switching by one State Duma deputy (pp. 94–96). There are even some surprisingmomentsofhumour,suchasthedescriptionofthetimewhenformer Central Electoral Commission chairman Vladimir Churov landed in a pond in 2012 (p. 68), and the footnote on Ivan Rybkin’s mysterious disappearance during the 2004 presidential election campaign (p. 29). The use of the word ‘election’ in modern-day Russia is often modified by adjectives such as ‘fake’, ‘rigged’, ‘manipulated’ and ‘falsified’. One distinctive feature of Hutcheson’s analysis is that ‘it does not take as its starting point the automaticassumptionthattheRussianFederationisanunequivocally“electoral authoritarian” regime’ (p. 3). One advantage of taking this approach is that Hutcheson can do justice to the variation in the level of Kremlin control over elections in the post-Soviet period; there is not one simple characterization that can capture the federal executive’s stance towards, and fortunes in, State Duma elections. Another advantage is that, by adopting this starting point — that ‘real elections take place within the rules of the game’ (p. 56) — Hutcheson remains sensitive to the ways (beyond unfair manipulation of electoral procedures and illegal falsification) by which the authorities have been able to secure victories since 2003, such as through adopting modern political marketing techniques to appeal to as many voters as possible. The recipe for success in electoral authoritarian...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».