Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:22:15.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects for a Democratic Left in Postcommunist Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Thomas F. Remington
Thomas F. Remington
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Parties of the democratic left have fared surprisingly poorly in postcommunist Russia. The reasons for this have to do with the legacy of the communist state, particularly the weakness of organized social associations outside the state and the continuing strength of patrimonial and corporatist patterns of state-society relations, together with constitutional and electoral institutions in the post-1993 system that undermine incentives for a system of competitive national political parties.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 15 , Issue 1: Special Issue: The Future of the Democratic Left in Industrial Democracies , January 2003 , pp. 130 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bunce, Valerie, Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State (Cambridge, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gustafson, Thane, Reform in Soviet Politics: Lessons of Recent Policies on Land and Water (Cambridge, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remington, Thomas F., “Regime Transition in Communist Systems: The Soviet Case,” Soviet Economy 6, no. 2 (1990): 160–190Google Scholar; Roeder, Philip G., Red Sunset: The Failure of Soviet Politics (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar. For a contrary argument to the effect that more skillful and forceful leadership on the part of Gorbachev could still have preserved the union and brought about a moderate, democratic, socialist regime, see Hough, Jerry F., Democratization and Revolution in the USSR (Washington, D.C., 1997)Google Scholar, and idem, The Logic of Economic Reform in Russia (Washington, D.C., 2001)Google Scholar.

2. Rose, Richard and Shin, Doh Chull, “Democratization Backwards: The Problem of Third-Wave Democracies,” British Journal of Political Science 31 (2001): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Rose, Richard, “Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Pre-Modern, and Anti-Modern,” Post-Soviet Affairs 16, no. 1 (2000): 33–57Google Scholar; Cf. Ledeneva, Alena V., Russia's Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking, and Informal Exchange (Cambridge, 1998).Google Scholar

4. Rose, Richard, “Getting Things Done with Social Capital: New Russia Barometer VII,” Studies in Public Policy, no. 303 (Glasgow, 1998)Google Scholar. Richard Rose's New Russia Barometer is a series of opinion surveys of a nationally representative sample of adult Russians conducted by Russia's premier survey research organization, the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research. The number of survey respondents is 2,000.

5. Hellman, Joel S., Jones, Geraint, and Kaufmann, Daniel, “Seize the State, Seize the Day”: State Capture, Corruption, and Influence in Transition (Washington, D.C., 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Kitschelt, Herbert, Mansfeldova, Zdenka, Markowski, Radoslaw, and Toka, Gabor, Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation (Cambridge, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Remington, Thomas F., Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and Industrial Organization, 1917–1921 (Pittsburgh, 1984).Google Scholar

8. Kasza, Gregory J., The Conscription Society: Administered Mass Organizations (New Haven, 1995)Google Scholar; Odom, William E., The Soviet Volunteers: Modernization and Bureaucracy in a Public Mass Organization (Princeton, 1974).Google Scholar

9. Cook, Linda J., “Brezhnev's ‘Social Contract’ and Gorbachev's Reforms,” Soviet Studies 44, no. 1 (1992): 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The Soviet “Social Contract” and Why It Failed: Welfare Policy and Workers' Politics from Brezhnev to Yeltsin (Cambridge, Mass., 1993)Google Scholar; idem, “Russia's Labor Relations: Consolidation or Disintegration?” in Russia's Future: Consolidation or Disintegration? ed. Blum, Douglas W. (Boulder, 1994), 69–90Google Scholar; Davis, Sue, Trade Unions in Russia and Ukraine, 1985–1995 (New York, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruble, Blair A., Soviet Trade Unions: Their Development in the 1970s (Cambridge, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Crowley, Stephen “Barriers to Collective Action: Steelworkers and Mutual Dependence in the Former Soviet Union,” World Politics 46, no. 4 (1994): 589–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Hot Coal, Cold Steel: Russian and Ukrainian Workers from the End of the Soviet Union to the Post-Communist Transformations (Ann Arbor, 1997).Google Scholar

11. Elizabeth Teague, “Soviet Workers Find a Voice,” Report on the USSR, Radio Liberty 302/90, 13 July 1990, 13–17.

12. On the choices faced by the Yeltsin regime in the early 1990s, see Shleifer, Andrei and Treisman, Daniel, Without a Map: Political Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 2000).Google Scholar

13. McFaul, Michael, Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin (Ithaca, 2001).Google Scholar

14. Remington, Thomas F., The Russian Parliament: Institutional Evolution in a Transitional Regime, 1989–1999 (New Haven, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Remington, Thomas F., “The Evolution of Executive-Legislative Relations in Russia Since 1993,” Slavic Review 59, no. 3 (2000): 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. On the CPRF, see Urban, Joan Barth and Solovei, Valerii D., Russia's Communists at the Crossroads (Boulder, 1997).Google Scholar

17. At a press conference held at the State Duma in the mid-1990s, I heard Gennadii Ziuganov, the leader of the CPRF, denounce the penetration of even the remotest Russian villages with such symbols of American popular styles as the wearing of baseball caps. The Americanization of Russia had gone so far, he declared, that it had turned into “vampirization.” He expressed a more tempered statement in an op-ed article in the New York Times on 1 February 1996, where he rejected the “neo-liberalism” of the Yeltsin regime and its aping of Western models but called for a relationship between Russia and the United States based on pragmatism and the mutual respect of two superpowers.

18. Segodnia, 25 August 2000.

19. In the spring of 2002, the communists were deprived of their committee chairmanships in the Duma in a show of strength by the pro-government majority coalition. The plenum of the CPRF's Central Committee voted to demand that Gennadii Seleznev give up his position as chairman of the Duma. Seleznev refused to do so, however, and was expelled from the party as a result. However, he retained his post as speaker.

20. The 1993 Constitution provides for removal of a president through impeachment. The procedure consists of four basic steps. The State Duma must vote by a two-thirds majority (or three hundred affirmative votes) in favor of impeachment; the Supreme Court must affirm that the president's actions constitute grave crimes or treason; the Constitutional Court must rule that no procedural violations were committed in the Duma's approval of the decision to impeach; and the Federation Council must vote by a two-thirds majority to remove the president. Initiating impeachment proceedings gives the Duma leverage over the president, in that once the Duma has approved (by the required two-thirds majority) the motion to impeach, the president may not dissolve the Duma and call new elections.

21. RFE/RL Newsline, 23 June 1998.

22. See RFE/RL Newsline, 19 May 1999; Segodnia, 20 May 1999.

23. Wendy Slater, “The Russian Communist Party Today,” RFE/RL Research Report 3:31 (12 August 1994), 4.

24. See the VTsIOM survey results published on 13 May 2002 on the Polit.ru Web site: <www.polit.ru/printable/483733.html>. The percentages are based on all those expressing an intention to vote and are taken from a survey of a nationwide representative sample of Russian adults.

25. On the CPRF, see Sakwa, Richard, “Left or Right? The CPRF and the Problem of Democratic Consolidation in Russia,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 14, nos. 1–2 (03–06 1998): 128–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urban, Joan and Solovei, Valerii D., Russia's Communists at the Crossroads (Boulder, 1997).Google Scholar

26. VTsIOM survey results published on the Polit.ru Web site: <www.polit.ru/printable/483733.html> on 13 May 2002.

27. RFE/RL Newsline, 13 August 2001.

28. VTsIOM survey results published on the Polit.ru Web site: <www.polit.ru/printable/483733.html> on 13 May 2002.

29. RFE/RL Newsline, 16 May 2000; Polit.ru, 31 May 2000; Segodnia, 14 July 2000: RFE/RL Newsline, 18 July and 16 August 2000.

30. Shvetsova, Olga, “Institutions and Coalition-Building in Post-Communist Transitions,” in Reynolds, Andrew, ed., The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy (New York, 2002), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar