Authoritarian Backlash: Russian Resistance to Democratization in the Former Soviet Union by Thomas Ambrosio (review)

Marandici, Ion

doi:10.1353/imp.2011.0067

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysis assuming a "liberal" 2 perspective typically takes domestic politics as its point of departure. Assertive foreign policy, in that reading, results from authoritarian tendencies in Russian politics and elites' aversion to democratization and popular movements backed by the West (Ambrosio, 2009). For former U.S. ambassador and political scientist Michael McFaul, it seems clear that "Russian foreign policy did not grow more aggressive in response to US policies; it changed as a result of Russian internal political dynamics" (McFaul et al, 2014, p. 169).…”

Section: The 2014 Ukraine Crisis According To Major Ir Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hooked on a Feeling: Russia's Annexation of Crimea Through the Lens of Emotion

Edinger

2023

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article tests the plausibility of an affect-centered framework for foreign policy analysis, using the 2014 annexation of Crimea as an illustrative case. It identifies questions left open by prevailing accounts based on international relations theory and shows how a supplementary conceptual lens can improve existing explanations. The affective perspective suggests that the Russian president deemed intervention in Ukraine without alternative. Otherwise, Russia would have surrendered any claim to relevance in European security. More saliently, the ouster of Yanukovych, as a possible precedent for Russia, frightened Putin and increased his resolve to take action. Also, contrary to the interpretation of the annexation as an improvised reaction to a political crisis, evidence suggests that the Russian elite welcomed the opportunity to break free from uncomfortable partnership dynamics with the West.

show abstract

Section: The 2014 Ukraine Crisis According To Major Ir Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hooked on a Feeling: Russia's Annexation of Crimea Through the Lens of Emotion

Edinger

2023

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Russian political system is classified as a republican democracy by the Constitution of Russian Federation (). Within the academic discourse, it is described as illiberal (Zakaria 2007), authoritarian (Ambrosio 2016), defective (Merkel 2004), uncertain (Mitchell 2013), hybrid (McMann 2006), neo-authoritarian (Becker 2004), a pseudodemocracy (Diamond 2015), and an informational autocracy (Guriev and Treisman 2019). Since the start of the "third wave" of democratisation in the 1970s (Huntington 1991), there has been no scholarly consensus on what actually constitutes democracy and on which institutions and freedoms signify a fully transitioned democratic regime (Diamond 2015), and Russia seems to fall in between the definitions maze.…”

Section: The Russian Political System: This Is Neither a Democratic N...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ghosts Navalny Met: Russian YouTube-Sphere in Check

Belinskaya

2021

Journalism and Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The disrupted Russian media ecosystem facilitates the flourishing of political blogging on social media; the political communication expands beyond the over-controlled, institutionalised channels of political interaction. This paper maps the activity on YouTube, incorporating media and communication studies to the analysis of a hybrid political regime to answer the following research question: What representations of Navalny are available in the Russian YouTube-sphere? The analysis of a statistically random sample of 366 videos associated with the keyword “Navalny” works in two phases: image type analysis and narrative analysis. Both phases help to identify the traditional institutionalised political actors in the spillovers of political communication trends in the YouTube-sphere. This work not only enriches and updates the current understanding of the Russian political communication ecosystem, but also helps expand the research on contemporary quasi-democratic political scenarios and the communicative strategies of their legitimisation.

show abstract

“…A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy. n.d., 1) 2 See, for example, Levitsky and Way 2010;von Soest 2015;Ambrosio 2009;Cameron and Orenstein 2012. 3 (Schenkkan and Linzer 2021, 4) protest marches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Language of Legitimation in Authoritarian Regimes

Kalkamanova

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No wonder, totalitarian societies were under the scrutiny of political scientists and philosophers of the post-World War II period. Fascism and Communist party in the Soviet bloc were extensively investigated by the brightest scholars of the 20th century, Hannah Arendt 1973, Friedrich and Brzezinski 1965, Huntington and Moore 1970, Linz 1975. Huntington and Moore (1970 provide most comprehensive classification of one-party systems based not only on theoretical propositions but also on empirical relationships of politics with social divisions. Sartori, Allardt, and Stein in 1970 also made a comparative study of political parties, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, despotism, and absolutism. Almond and Powell (1966) constructed classification of conservative, modernizing, and premobilized authoritarian (Spain, Brazil, and Ghana of the 60's would respectively are the examples). As was noted by Friedrich and Brzezinski (1965): "Totalitarian regimes of 20th century were novelty, no government like that had existed before the 20th century." 150 There are few totalitarian regimes: Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Communist China. Modern North Korea also has the features of a totalitarian regime. 151The typology of non-democratic regimes by Linz J. ( 2000) distinguishes totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes in all their varieties, particularly post-totalitarianism (as a distinctive type of authoritarian rule), "sultanistic" regimes or regimes with strong sultanistic tendencies.Linz's practical criteria for delimiting democratic regimes from non-democratic are based on his definition of democracy which "allows the free formulation of political preferences, through the use of basic freedoms of association, information, and communication, for the purpose of free competition between leaders to validate at regular intervals by nonviolent means their claim to rule." 152 To sum up, his requirement for a state to be put into the group of democracies is the presence of political rights, freedom to form political parties, contestation in elections, elections at regular intervals, alternation in power (not always an indicator). The analysis of these features permits us to unequivocally distinguish democratic and non-democratic states.Authoritarian regime according to Linz (2000) means:… political systems with limited, not responsible, political pluralism, without elaborate and guiding ideology, but with distinctive mentalities, without extensive nor intensive

show abstract

Authoritarian Backlash: Russian Resistance to Democratization in the Former Soviet Union by Thomas Ambrosio (review)

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Hooked on a Feeling: Russia's Annexation of Crimea Through the Lens of Emotion

Hooked on a Feeling: Russia's Annexation of Crimea Through the Lens of Emotion

The Ghosts Navalny Met: Russian YouTube-Sphere in Check

The Language of Legitimation in Authoritarian Regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About