Russia in the Putin era – a case of bureaucratic authoritarianism?

There has been much debate surrounding the classification of the kind of regime which developed in Russia following the collapse of communism and this has only intensified during the Putin era. This article considers whether the concept of bureaucratic-authoritarianism is really applicable in the case of Russia. Lilia Shevtsova was the first to tentatively state that Russia is a case of bureaucratic-authoritarianism. However, to provide more assured acceptance or rejection of the concept, this article returns to the paradigm’s roots. The concept of bureaucratic-authoritarianism was developed by Guillermo O’Donnell and thus the characteristics he outlined are applied to the case of Russia in the Putin era. Doing so allows for a level of precision and depth in concluding that bureaucratic-authoritarianism is a relevant paradigm. Confirmatory evidence for all seven of the characteristics enumerated by O’Donnell is found, suggesting that Russia in the Putin era can be considered a case of bureaucratic-authoritarianism.

Alexey Navalny: A hero of the new time

Russian leaders first tried to poison him, then unlawfully imprisoned him, and now are publicly torturing him. His enemies see him as an illegitimate pretender to the Russian throne. His fans are captivated by his ability to survive assassinations and withstand torture. I was among those who nominated Alexey Navalny for the Nobel Peace Prize. Though he has not received it, this failure exposes meaningful though underappreciated truths about Russia and about the world. My story will leap back and forward between Navalny’s individual actions, the peculiarities of Putinism, and global issues of neoliberal governance.

The great dichotomy: How experiences of history and transcendence explain Ukraine’s political life

The article uses Eric Voegelin’s ontology to address domestic processes in contemporary Ukraine. It explains how interpretations of experiences of history and transcendence evoke political order and justice. It also outlines the nature of political symbols deriving from these experiences. The article argues that Ukraine’s social architecture is constructed according to a set of arrangements that are generally regarded as moral and functional under given circumstances. As a result, it provides political elites a platform from which to build a plan of action and gain legitimacy. The article not only shows how Voegelin’s ontology can be used to explain Zelensky’s 2019 presidential election victory but also highlights its interpretative advantages over competing analytical approaches from within the frameworks of institutionalism and behaviorism.

New dissidence in contemporary Russia: Students, feminism and new ethics

The essay is devoted to the specifics of the contemporary Russian opposition and civil society. We describe the characteristics of contemporary ‘intellectual activism’ and the growing network of small civil and political groups in today’s Russia. We show that Russian civil society remains fragile and fragmented; the public discussion is not focused on strategies of resistance to arbitrariness but on constructing moral categories such as the wide and vague concept of ‘new ethics’. We also show how outsiders appear among contemporary Russian dissidents, who are not supported by most independent leaders and intellectuals – these are young ‘new leftists’ and feminist activist groups. These political activists find themselves under pressure from both the siloviki and the authorities, and in the focus of criticism of opposition leaders, becoming, in fact, dissidents among dissidents in contemporary Russia.

Outrageous: Defending the art of free expression

This essay makes a critical defence of free expression through the spirit of outrageousness. Drawing upon the ideas of Oscar Wilde, along with artists such as Frida Kahlo, Francis Bacon, Gilbert and George and Jake and Dinos Chapman, it looks beyond the current attempts to reduce the question of freedom to quintessential liberal tropes. In doing so, the paper both offers a critique of the moral absolutism that’s taken over certain sectors of the so-called ‘radical left’, while demanding more political appreciation for creatives and those with the abilities to reimagine the human subject. Such a critique not only suggests the need to rethink the meaning for freedom beyond the play of libertarians, but it also calls forth a new political subjectivity who appears timely and yet timeless – the much maligned and theoretically ignored figure of the infidel, who allows us to break free from moral entrapments.

Dissent, its Persecutors, and the New Russia

The post-Soviet decades have brought about significant changes of the Russian social landscape. A countless number of civic initiatives engaged in charitable operation, legal assistance, education, environment, arts and culture, etc. have emerged across Russia. Self-help communities and effective crowd-funding for all kinds of purposes are evidence of public solidarity inconceivable in the Soviet state. The second half of the 2010s were marked by a rise in investigative reporting based on state-of-the-art data journalism and the rapid progress in social media. Apparently, the impressive rise in civil society has become a matter of growing concern for the Russian government, and in the past year, the Kremlin has stepped up persecutions of political activists and investigative media. This repressive surge is reminiscent of the events some four decades ago when the Soviet government undertook to radically eliminate the dissident movement. The activists of today may be different from the Soviet dissidents, but for now, they are just as defenseless vis-à-vis the state as the dissidents were.

Judeo-Christian democracy and the Transatlantic Right: Travels of a contested civilizational imaginary

“Judeo-Christian civilization” and “Christian democracy” have emerged as darling far Right tropes, seemingly uniting radical conservatives in the US and Europe behind a single, geopolitical imaginary. This article presents a brief political-conceptual story of how “Judeo-Christianity” and “Christian democracy” became a rhetorical meeting ground for radical conservatives across the Atlantic. But it also sheds light on why deep, historical, intellectual, and ethnographic divides beneath, make those grounds highly unstable terrain. Divides not only between European and American traditions of liberalism and conservatism but also between the experiences and practices of state power that inform them. Beneath the slogans of Christian democracy espoused in such disparate contexts as Charlottesville and Budapest, move different legacies, memories, enemies.

“Defend your right!” How the populist radical right uses references to rights and freedoms to discursively construct identities

The article explores how the European populist radical right uses references to rights and freedoms in its political discourse. By relying on the findings of the existing research and applying the discourse-historical approach to electoral speeches by Marine Le Pen and Jarosław Kaczyński, the leaders of two very dissimilar EU PRR parties, the Rassemblement National and the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, the article abductively develops a functional typology of references to rights and freedoms commonly used in discourses of European PRR parties: it suggests that PRR discourses in Europe feature references to the right to sovereignty, citizens’ rights, social rights, and economic rights. Such references are used as a coherent discursive strategy to construct social actors following the PRR ideological core of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. As the PRR identifies itself with the people, defined along nativist and populist lines, rights are always attributed to it. The PRR represents itself as the defender of the people and its rights, while the elites and the aliens are predicated to threaten the people and its rights. References to rights in PRR discourses intrinsically link the individual with the collective, which allows to construct and promote a populist model of ethnic democracy.