A top-down movement with grass-roots effects? Alexei Navalny’s electoral campaign
Today’s Russia is a hostile environment for genuine political activity, and especially for movements that aim at changing the current power structure. This is due to the factually limited manoeuvre space of oppositional actors who face obstacles in the form of repression, surveillance and restricted access to the public sphere. Moreover, society is largely apolitical, with political activity often considered futile, immoral, or dangerous. In this profile, we portray the electoral campaign of the opposition politician and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, who built a popular movement around his bid to participate in the 2018 presidential elections. Although the campaign failed to build up sufficient pressure for Navalny to be granted access to the elections, and despite the strong hierarchy inside his campaign, we argue that it contributed to the politicization of parts of the younger generation in the country’s provinces – which may have greater long-term effects than any concrete projects envisioned or controlled by the campaign’s strategists.
The monograph is devoted to the phenomenon of politicization of constitutional institutes, which has emerged in recent years in the United States and the EU. The authors also analyze the peculiarities of electoral law and the electoral system in the United States, show the specifics of the election campaigns of individual parties and their leaders. The problem of revolutions as a form of national government, opposed in electoral procedures in the modern world is considered. Particular attention is paid to the process of politicization of the judiciary.
This two-part overview of contemporary Russian anthropology focuses in detail on the work of several scholars and situates it in the changing landscape of Russian academia. The main issue I address is debates about an academic identity of Russian anthropology as ‘historical science’. Given that in Western anthropology, history has become one of the leading modes of anthropological analysis and that the turn to history marked a radical repositioning of anthropology’s very subject, it is important to explore how such configurations of history and anthropology work in other anthropological traditions and what the reasons are for turning to history or, conversely, avoiding it, for specific national, continental and transnational anthropological schools. In this article, I explore these questions by focusing on anthropology in Russia with an aim of reassembling the relationship between anthropology and history from the point of view of the anthropology of time. I ask what temporal frameworks underscore the relationship between anthropology and history. I explore these understandings ethnographically, that is, through ethnographic interviews with Russian scholars in addition to close readings of their works.
The book is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Russian parliamentarism. The analysis of historical experience and actual problems of development of parliamentarism in Russia, Germany and a number of other European countries is presented. The authors are leading Russian and foreign experts from a number of research centers in Russia and Europe. Materials on the analysis of the development of parliamentarism in Germany and other European countries are based on the results of the European project "Parliamentary representation in Europe: recruiting and the career of legislators in 1848-2005", implemented during the last decade.
The book is addressed to a wide range of readers - scientists, politicians, public servants, teachers and students, everyone who is interested in the history and modern experience of Russian and European parliamentarism.
Russia’s policy towards Northeast Asia cannot be understood independently of its general Asian strategy, primarily its pivot to Asia, which has practically become an official policy after 2014. We are witnessing two contradictory tendencies in Washington and Seoul. The Trump administration seeks to assume a tougher stance on North Korea. At the same time, South Korea’s new government is likely to be more moderate towards Pyongyang. At the same time Russian experts expressed considerable hope.
The preface to the translation of "Politics" by C. Schmitt. Schmitt in 1933-36 aspired (though rather unsuccessfully) to become an ideological guru of the Nazi regime, that was only in the process of formation then. It allows to formulate the question about the guilt of the thinker, but doesn't prevent to find the theoretical contents in his works of this period. Criticism of parliamentary democracy and understanding the political as an opposition of enemies lead Schmitt to the concept of a tripartite political unity of people, state and movement. He sees the Nazi regime as a new kind of politics based not on struggle, but on mobilization of the people conducted by the Führer. This design turned out to be not only politically vicious, but also theoretically defective, however its studying is an instructive experience.