Factors of Party System Nationalization in Contemporary Russia


Gaivoronsky Yu.O.,

Junior Researcher, Regional Political Research Lab, National Research University Higher School of Economics, guyvoronskiy@hse.ru

elibrary_id: 796488 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.01.04
For citation:

Gaivoronsky Yu.O. Factors of Party System Nationalization in Contemporary Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No. 1. P. 45-61. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.01.04



Abstract

The article attempts to identify the major factors of party system nationalization in contemporaryRussia. The concept of nationalization is treated as the nationwide participation in elections andterritorial voting homogenization, which allows to study the formation of national parties participatingin the process of political competition within nationwide standardized patterns of electoral behavior. Thestudy is focused on national (2016) and subnational (2012-2016) parliamentary elections (proportionalrepresentation). The author introduces the national-subnational covering index, which covers electionparticipation strategies of political parties at different territorial levels. The measuring shows a significantvariation in electoral participation of the parties across the territory, what can be explained by the level ofthe institutionalization (parliamentary / non-parliamentary) as well as their durability. Also, statisticalanalysis has been carried out with data concerning voting homogeneity of the State Duma 2016 elections(according to Party Nationalization Score by Jones-Mainwaring) used as sample. Principal componentanalysis has revealed that the voting nationalization structure is quite compact and similar to the structureof electoral competition where “United Russia” occupies a separate position from all other parties in theelectoral space (so-called “structural domination”). On the other hand, it is also important to considerthe cleavage between the federal parliamentary parties and the non-systemic opposition plus the mostsuccessive spoilers. For instance, the regression analysis reveals the importance of regional politicalfactors like the governors’ ability to consolidate regional elites delivering votes in high levels of territorialhomogenization. At the same time the radical opposition remains marginalized, being forced to deny participating in regional electoral campaigns. 

Keywords
political parties; party system; party system nationalization; electoral analysis; parliamentary elections; regions of Russia; governors.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Akhremenko A.S. Spatial Modeling of Electoral Choice: Development, Modern Problems and Prospects (II). – Polis. Political Studies. 2007. No. 2. P. 165-179. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.11

Berezkin A., Myagkov M., Ordeshook P. Location and Political Influence: a Further Elaboration of Their Effects on Voting in Recent Russian Elections. – Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2003. Vol. 44. No. 3. P. 169-183. https://doi.org/10.2747/1538-7216.44.3.169

Brancati D. The Origins and Strengths of Regional Parties. – British Journal of Political Science. 2008. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000070

Caramani D. The Nationalization of Politics: the Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004. xviii, 347 p.

Chhibber P.K., Kollman K. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 2004. XIV, 276 p.

Clem R.S., Craumer P.R. Regional Patterns of Political Preference in Russia: The December 1999 Duma Elections. — Post-Soviet Geography and Economics. 2000. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 1-29.

Deschouwer K. Towards Regionalization of Statewide Electoral Trends in Decentralized States? The Cases of Belgium and Spain. – Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe. Ed. By W. Swenden, B. Maddens. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. P. 31-46.

Fearon J. Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country. – Journal of Economic Growth. 2003. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 195-222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024419522867

Gelman V., Golosov G. Regional Party System Formation in Russia: The Deviant Case of Sverdlovsk Oblast. – Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. 1998. Vol. 14. No. 1-2. P. 31-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523279808415368

Gill G. The Decline of a Dominant Party and the Destabilization of Electoral Authoritarianism? – Post- Soviet Affairs. 2012. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 449-471.

Golosov G. Factors of Party System Nationalization. – International Political Science Review. 2016. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 246-260.

Golosov G. Russia’s Regional Legislative Elections, 2003–2007: Authoritarianism Incorporated. Europe- Asia Studies. 2011. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 397-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2011.557533

Golosov G., Grigoriev V. Party System Nationalization: The Russian Specific. – Political Science. 2005. No. 1. P. 128-156. (In Russ.)

Hale H.E. Explaining Machine Politics in Russia’s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy. – Post- Soviet Affairs. 2003. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 228-263.

Harbers I. Decentralization and the Development of Nationalized Party Systems in New Democracies. Evidence from Latin America. – Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. No. 5. P. 606-627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008330285

 Ishiyama J. Regionalism and the Nationalization of the Legislative Vote in Post-Communist Russian Politics. – Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2002. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(02)00005-3

Ishiyama J. The Russian Proto-Parties and the National Republics. – Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 1996. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(96)80023-7

Jones M., Mainwaring S. The Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems: an Empirical Measure and an Application to the Americas. – Working Paper #304. 2003. URL: https://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/304.pdf (accessed 03.06.2017).

Lago-Peñas I., Lago-Peñas S. Decentralization and Nationalization of Party Systems. – Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 2011. Vol. 29. No. 2.

Lipset S., Rokkan S. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press. 1967. 554 p.

Makarenko B.I. Post-Soviet Party of Power: the “United Russia” in a Comparative Context. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No. 1. P. 42-65. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/en/article/4374 (accessed 05.12.2017).

Mendras M. How Regional Elites Preserve Their Power. – Post-Soviet Affairs. 1999. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 295-311.

Merrill S., Grofman B.A. Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. 368 p.

Morgenstern S., Swindle S., Castagnola A. Party Nationalization and Institutions. – Journal of Politics. 2009. Vol. 74. No. 1. P. 1322-1341. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990132

Ordeshook P. Russia’s Party System: is Russian Federalism Viable? – Post-Soviet Affairs. 1996. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 195-217.

Podvintsev O. Governors-“outliers” and Regional Political Elites in Contemporary Russia. – Political Expertise: POLITEX. 2009. No. 2. P. 56-71. (In Russ.)

Reuter O.J., Robertson G. Subnational Appointments in Authoritarian Regimes: Evidence from Russian Gubernatorial Appointments. – The Journal of Politics. 2012. Vol. 74. No. 4. P. 1023-1037. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000631

Riker W. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1964. 532 p.

Schakel A. Nationalisation of Multilevel Party Systems: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis. – European Journal of Political Research. 2013. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02067.x

Shugart M., Carey J. Presidents and Assemblies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. 332 p.

Solnick S. The 1996-97 Gubernatorial Elections: Outcomes and Implications. – Post-Soviet Affairs. 1998. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 48–80.

Stoner-Weiss K. Local Heroes: the Political Economy of Russian Regional Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1997. 342 p.

Tiemann G. The Nationalization of political parties and party systems in post-communist Eastern Europe. – Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2012. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. postcomstud.2012.02.009

Turovsky R. Russian Electoral Space: From the “Imposed” Nationalization to a New Regionalization? – Polity. Polity: Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast. 2012. No. 3. P. 100-120. (In Russ.)

Turovsky R. Party Systems Nationalization and Regionalization: Approaches to Study. – Polity: Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast. 2016. No. 1. P. 162-180. (In Russ.)

 

Turovsky R.F. The Systemic Opposition in Authoritarian Regimes: A Case Study of Russia’s Regions. – Civil Society Awakens? The Systemic and Non-Systemic Opposition in the Russian Federation: National and Regional Dimensions. Ed. by C. Ross. L.: Ashgate. 2015. P. 64-82. 

Content No. 1, 2018

See also:


Gelman V.Ya.,
Political Parties in Russia: from Competition – to Hierarchy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No5

Kashirskikh O.N.,
Political Parties of Germany in the Context of the Modernization of Political Communication. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No2

Makarenko B.I.,
Parliamentary Elections of 2003 as Significative of Crisis of the Party System. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No1

Kozyreva P.M., Smirnov A.I.,
Crisis of Russia’s multiparty system. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No4

Korgunyuk Yu.G.,
The 2012-2014 Party Reform and the Structure of the Electoral Divides in Russia’s Regions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No4

 
 

Archive

   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991