Everyday Law in Russia

Abstract

This book challenges the prevailing common wisdom that Russians cannot rely on their law and that Russian courts are hopelessly politicized and corrupt. While acknowledging the persistence of verdicts dictated by the Kremlin in politically charged cases, the text explores how ordinary Russian citizens experience law. Relying on extensive observational research in Russia's new justice-of-the-peace courts as well as analysis of a series of focus groups, the book documents Russians' complicated attitudes regarding law. It shows that Russian judges pay close attention to the law in mundane disputes, which account for the vast majority of the cases brought to the Russian courts. Any reluctance on the part of ordinary Russian citizens to use the courts is driven primarily by their fear of the time and cost—measured in both financial and emotional terms—of the judicial process. Like their American counterparts, Russians grow more willing to pursue disputes as the social distance between them and their opponents increases; Russians are loath to sue friends and neighbors, but are less reluctant when it comes to strangers or acquaintances. The book concludes that the “rule of law” rubric is ill suited to Russia and other authoritarian polities where law matters most—but not all—of the time.

Nature versus Nurture: A Comparison of Russian Law Graduates Destined for State Service and for Private Practice

“…The unwillingness to dissent from positions taken by the Putin regime among aspiring state lawyers indicates a risk‐averse character that will stand them in good stead in the bureaucracy. It is a quality that I have independently observed in my ethnographic work among Russian judges (Hendley , ), and it likewise undergirds the tendency of state lawyers within the criminal justice system to push for convictions at all costs.…”

“…Some scholars of the Russian courts argue that connections routinely trump law, giving rise to so‐called telephone law (Ledeneva ). Others characterize the courts as dualistic (Smith ; Sakwa ; Hendley ). They recognize that elites have been able to control the outcomes of cases in which they take a strong interest, but they contend that judges pay close attention to the dictates of the law in the vast majority of mundane disputes.…”

“…Such practices have been disavowed by every post‐Soviet Russian leader, but they nonetheless persist to the present day. The actual number represents a tiny percentage of all cases heard, but these politicized cases tend to dominate media coverage of the Russian courts, which amplifies their significance (Sharlet ; Hendley ). This narrative of the judicial process as politically compromised is commonplace in memoirs of participants and observers of the criminal justice system, both Russian (Politkovskaya ; Romanova ) and Western (Browder ), and undergirds the treatment of courts by social scientists who are not specialists on law (Ledeneva ; Dawisha ).…”

“When They Come for You”: Legal Mobilization in New Authoritarian Russia

“…Russian citizens are not the victims of a fully broken judicial system (Hendley ), even though they distrust the court system. Although some cases are politicized—for example, the trials of feminist punk band “Pussy Riot” or former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky—citizens can still win mundane cases in court (Hendley ). Russians are savvy users of the court system (Hendley ; Henry ), especially justice‐of‐the‐peace courts (Hendley ).…”

Law and Precariousness in an Authoritarian State: The Case of Illegal House Construction in Vietnam

“…In authoritarian regimes that claim to rule by the law, the operation of legal institutions is closely tied to the state's objective of power consolidation, of co‐opting and sanctioning social and political forces acting against state interests (Sidel 2008; Chua ; Moustafa ; Whiting ; Curley, Dressel, and McCarthy ). At the societal level, state law in authoritarian regimes has enjoyed limited cultural legitimacy compared with Western rule‐of‐law democracies, as ordinary citizens are often found to bypass, evade, and resist the law and law enforcement institutions in order to solve their social grievances and conduct daily transactions (Galligan ; He ; Hsu ; Hendley ; Su ). Citizens either express their distrust and antipathy toward law as a touchstone of fairness and justice, or else they only use law instrumentally or manipulatively in pursuit of certain ends without subscribing to its ideals and values.…”