Democracy Revised: Democratic Imaginary and Emerging Autocracy in Post-Soviet Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary autocracies often maintain a connection with democracy. They do not entirely dismantle the democratic structures established within unfinished modernization projects. Instead, they emerge as “electoral autocracies” and manipulate the concept of democracy offering alternative interpretations and meanings to further their illiberal agenda. The paper delves into the revision of democracy and how the democratic imaginary is utilized in the context of emerging autocracy in post-Soviet Russia. While the post-Soviet Russian autocracy adjusted democratic institutions for its own objectives, it also intended to appropriate the concept of democracy at the semantic and symbolic levels. The rise of Putin’s autocracy is characterized by the radicalization of cultural-civilizational particularism endorsing anti-democratic illiberal arguments. Through this adaptable hermeneutic framework, the Russian authorities tend to relativize the concept of democracy, criticizing, and dismissing the relevance of liberal democracy. Simultaneously, they articulate a distinct “sovereign” version of democracy and claim that non-liberal regimes are legitimate forms of political modernity. The autocratic political discourse on democracy is intrinsically non-democratic, as the lack of intellectual autonomy, control, and closure of discourse constrain the scope of meaning. The resulting heteronomous conception of democracy presents a static and ahistorical society predestined to (re)produce a single pro-authoritarian cultural-political pattern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".