The Putin System: Russian Authoritarianism Today
| Autor | Armando Chaguaceda Noriega |
| Páginas | 75-92 |
Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública
Departamento de Gestión Pública y Departamento de Estudios Políticos y de Gobierno
Volumen V, número , enero-junio
Pp. -
Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública. Universidad de Guanajuato.
75
* is te xt —a reviewe d, expanded and up dated version of another one publishe d last year— w as pre-
pared for discu ssion in a conference at the University of Pittsbu rgh (Pennsylvania, United State s). e
author wants to tha nk a number of colleagues whose ide as, recommendations and support were k ey to
writing thi s article: A. Kolesnik ov, A. P. Liñan, A. Replansk i, C. Robinson, I. L Zhukovski, J. Dunn, L.
Diamond, L. G Calcaño, M. I. Puerta and S. Lev itski.
Fecha de recepción: d e marzo de .
Fecha de aceptación: d e mayo de .
THE PUTIN SYSTEM: RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM TODAY
El sistema Putin: el autoritarismo ruso contemporáneo
Armando Chaguaceda
Abstract
e article explores the ma in trends that have
characteriz ed the re-emergence, formation and
consolidation of an autocratic regi me in post-
Soviet Russia. We revisit the developments
that led Vladi mir Putin to the presidency of
the country; f raming these e vents as precur-
sors of changes in forma l structure s (institu-
tional and lega l) and informal power mecha-
nisms that dene t he current Russian political
leadership. Finally, we formulated questions
related to potential futu re scenarios involving
such leadership.
Keywords: Putin, Russi a, authorita rianism,
political regime, political development.
Resumen
El artículo e xplora las principales tendencias
que han caracter izado la re-emergencia, for-
mación y consolidación de un régimen auto-
crático en la Rusia post soviética. Revi sitamos
el desarrollo que condujo a Vlad imir Putin a
la presidencia del pais; enma rcando esos even-
tos como precursores de los cambios en la s
estructuras formales (institucionales y legales)
y los mecanismos de poder in formal que de-
nen el actual lidera zgo político ruso. Y se for-
mulan interrogantes rel ativas a los potenciales
escenarios fut uros que le implican.
Palabras clave: Put in, Rusia, a utoritarismo,
régimen político, desar rollo político
: *
e study of Russia’s political evolution in the post-Soviet period (-present) has de-
veloped into a eld of inquiry that can oer those interested in politica l transformation
processes many important theoretical and practical insights. e passage from a post-
totalitarian, single-par ty regime to an imperfect electoral democracy, followed by the re-
gression to diverse forms of authoritarianism —e vents that span a mere years — aords
us uniquely useful insig hts into the relationship between democrat ization and de-democ-
Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública. Universid ad de Guanajuato. Volumen V, número 1, enero -junio 2016
76
ratization in today’s world. A number of authors have studied this period within the con-
text of the more than years of Soviet rule that preceded it (Zimmerman, ; Urban,
Igronov & Mitrokhin, ), emphasizing the links between —a nd mutations of— their
respective political elites and processes. Others have tackled Russia’s transition process
through comparisons to events in Eastern Europe as a whole (McFaul, ). Certain pa-
pers have focused specical ly on the internal cha nges that took place from the collapse of
the Soviet Union to the advent of the Putin administration (Mc Faul, Petrov & Ryabov,
). Finally, other authors have attempted to reveal enduring patterns of Russian politi-
cal development in certain inst itutions (Tsygankov, ) and behaviors (Ledenova, ).
Analytical approaches have also oscillated bet ween those who regard autocracy as
an immutable trait and legacy of Russian history and culture —the pessimists—, those
who conceive of it as a historical burden that socioeconomic development and global
integration will gradual ly lift o the nation —the optimists— and those realists who,
without ignoring the contextual factors that sustain or curtail it, address it as the result
of actions by certain political actors who establish parameters of institutional develop-
ment and practice suitable to anti-democratic purposes (Gelman, ).
My approach, though no doubt indebted to many of these contemporary studies on
Russian politics, is based chiey on the contributions made by authors who have ana-
lyzed autocracy from the perspective of the main conicts and problems that this way
of conceiving and exercising political power entails (Svolik, ). Such conicts stem
from the challenges inherent to sharing power in the absence of impartial arbitrators
(within a context where the use of violence is constantly considered) and the need to
control the population (through both coercion and consensus) in non-democratic socie-
ties. is interpretative approach, not unlike the new institutionalist school (Pierson,
), also conceives of autocracy as the outcome of deliberate decisions made by cer-
tain political actors at critica l junctures.
Within specic institutional and cu ltural frameworks, these political actors seek to
maximiz e their power before their opponents (and society as a whole), conceiving of
political rivalries a s a zero-sum game that dema nds the curbing of existing checks and
balances and ma nipulating norms and institutions to this end (Gelman, ). Given
their cumulative nature and politica l impact, these strategic maneuvers gradually cur-
tail any possibility of reverting decisions made in the early stages of the process. It is
on the basis of these assumptions that I set out to grasp the origins of Russia’s current
Such positions, as de ned by Vladi mir Gelman (), welcome dierent ac ademic (and ideologica l)
interpretations of deci sive factors of Russian politica l development, all of them inuenced by cha nging
circumsta nces of the post-Soviet era. Without exhau sting in this note the complexit y and extent of the
mentioned elds, we perceive t he pessimist ic outlook adopted by the works of par ticularly cr itical au-
thors of the of the post-Yeltsin autocratic dri ft (such as the historian Anne A pplebaum). e optimi stic
look in the eyes of some an alysts (li ke the political s cientist and former amba ssador Michael McFau l)
that, even with c riticism, pondered democratiza tion advancements and the ee ct of ties with the West in
the period before the r ise of Putin. For a realistic p erspective, Vlad imir Gelman’s work is a good exa mple.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba