Public Deliberation in Russia: Deliberative Quality, Rationality and Interactivity of the Online Media Discussions

Abstract

Deliberation research is now undergoing two emerging trends: deliberation is shifting from offline to online, as well as from an inherently democratic concept to the one applicable to less competitive regimes (He & Warren, 2011). The goal of this article is to study the peculiarities of deliberative practices in hybrid regimes, taking online discourse on the Russian anti-sanctions policy as a case. We use the Habermasian concept of basic validity claims to assess deliberation quality through the lens of argumentation and interactivity. Our findings suggest that deliberative practices can exist in non-competitive contexts and non-institutionalized digital spaces, in the form of intersubjective solidarities resulting from the everyday political talk among ordinary citizens. Such deliberations can be counted as argumentative discourses, although in a special, casual way—unlike the procedural rule-based debates. Generally, as in established liberal democracies, deliberation in Russia tends to attract like-minded participants. While the argumentative quality does not seem to vary across the discussion threads sample, the level of deliberative interactivity is higher on pro-government media, accompanied with the higher level of incivility. On the other hand, discourses on independent media are distinctively against the government policy of food destruction. The democratic value of such deliberations is unclear and might depend on the political allegiance and ownership of the media. Though some discourses can be considered democratic, their impact on decision-making remains minimal, which is a key constraint of deliberation.

Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates

“…In many countries, including Russia, the internet has developed relatively freely for a long time (Filatova et al, 2019; Göbel, 2015; Soldatov & Borogan, 2015). Despite existing restrictions (Belyaeva, 2018; Vendil Pallin, 2017), the internet provides a space where citizens, experts, advocacy groups, or opposition politicians regularly debate policy (Chen & Xu, 2017b; Filatova et al, 2019; Göbel, 2015; Gunitsky, 2015). Online spaces including blogs, online media, or social media have become important alternative sources of information for citizens (Etling et al, 2014; Yagodin, 2014).…”

“…The restrictions to pluralism lead to debates that are separated into two clear sides: a dominant one in favor of governmental policy and a much less visible one that challenges governmental policy. Moreover, the influence of public debates on policy decisions is expected to be smaller and more indirect than in democratic settings as public policy debates usually take place after decisions have been taken by governmental actors (Filatova et al, 2019). Anti‐governmental narratives in authoritarian contexts may play a role in agenda setting or in the implementation stage of the policy cycle, if any, by raising attention to problems or pointing to ineffectiveness in implementation.…”

Public Discussion in Russian Social Media: An Introduction

“…This issue collects articles that address other political aspects of UGC, each with distinct empirical and theoretical focus. Filatova, Kabanov and Misnikov (2019) directly address the issue of authoritarian deliberation by comparing Russian user messages about food destruction on both pro-government and independent platforms. Food destruction-a measure taken by the Russian government against import of newly banned products-is taken as an example of controversial counter-sanction policy.…”

“…This conclusion is in line with earlier findings by Goncharov and Nechay (2018) who find that social media users clearly fall into oppositional and loyalist clusters. Even more interestingly, Filatova et al (2019) examine the structure and the quality of deliberation on both pro-government and independent platforms, comparing such features as civility and validation. This contributes to the studies of authoritarian deliberation that includes spaces beyond control of the national political elites.…”

“…Echoing with Koltsova and Nagorny (2019), Judina and Platonov (2019) go beyond showing the uneven dis-tribution of commenting over topics and examine different news features (such as exclusivity, presence of conflict or follow-up character) that influence the volume of likes, comments, and reposts in news. Just like Filatova et al (2019), they compare pro-government and independent Russian media. But, more importantly, they test the applicability of Harcup and O'Neill's (2016) taxonomy of news values to the Russian context and provide the critical analysis of this taxonomy, thus contributing to the theory of news values.…”