Факторы успеха кандидатов-самовыдвиженцев на выборах в представительные органы столиц регионов России (2014-2018 гг.)
This paper discusses the success factors of self-nominees at the municipal level of today’s Russian politics. Based on the empirical data from the elections to the representative bodies of Russia’s regional administrative centers held in 2014–2018, it is shown that the electoral performance of independent candidates was directly dependent on their bargains with local branches of the United Russia party. We also discovered a connection between the electoral success of self-nominated candidates and a number of their personal characteristics, in particular, the presence of incumbent status, the possession of a high level of education, and the presence of administrative, social or economic capital at their disposal. The results indicate that, on the one hand, the success of self-nominees at the municipal level depends on agreements with pro-regime political forces, which is consistent with the logic of the political process in electoral authoritarian regimes. On the other hand, even in conditions of limited competition, those candidates having solid status attractive for voters will have more chances for being elected.
In November 2013, some amendments to the Federal electoral legislation were adopted. In particular, they changed the minimal share of PR deputies in the regional legislative bodies from 50 to 25 percent. The article argues that adoption of these amendments was caused the purpose of strengthening the positions of United Russia on the level of the Russian regions. It shows that mainly majoritarian systems are more beneficial to the ‘party of power’ than mixed ones with the approximately equal ratio between majoritarian and proportional elements or pure proportional systems
Almost all modern autocracies hold elections, and most hold multiparty elections. The prevalence of electoral authoritarian regimes has led an increasing number of scholars to study them. However, one topic that has received less attention is subnational elections. Subnational officials play a central role in the governance of authoritarian regimes. Regime leaders rely on local officials to maintain political stability, implement policy, and gather information about the provinces. Many of the world’s electoral authoritarian regimes hold elections to fill subnational offices,2 and several of the world’s most prominent single-party regimes – e.g., China and Vietnam – have recently begun experimenting with semi-competitive local elections. The decision to hold subnational elections has significant consequences in autocracies. They may directly affect the prospects for democratization, as when opposition parties use subnational elections as staging areas from which to mount broader challenges. Alternatively, autocrats may use subnational elections to improve their information gathering capacity and entrap voters in state-dependent,clientelist relations. Subnational elections may also affect government responsiveness and the quality of officials that are selected. Yet in spite of their importance, there are few studies that attempt to explain why subnational elections are held in some settings, but not in others. This paper helps fill that gap.
The article was devoted the research of correlation between apartment to the church and political preferences of orthodox believers. The author analyzed the data “Socialnay stratifikaciay sovremennogo rossiiskogo obshestva”. He looks for connection between apartment to the church and voting for “United Russia”. The researcher make conclusion that variables have feeble statistical significance connection.
In Chapter 7, Alexander Kynev analyzes the dynamics of electoral support for the leading opposition parties in Russia. The study maps regional support for the systemic opposition and United Russia in the December 2011 elections to the State Duma, and the regional elections of 2012 and 2013. In addition, the chapter provides a detailed account of new party and election laws which were enacted in the wake of the mass protests in December 2011 and it outlines the various methods employed by United Russia to maintain its control over regional assemblies and executives. Kynev concludes that many of the new party and electoral laws were adopted in a panic as short term fixes, without much thought about their long term consequences. Some of these reforms, such as changes to the laws governing the registration of parties, the increase in the percentage of deputies elected in single member districts, which were aimed at fragmenting and weakening the system opposition, have backfired, allowing opposition parties and candidates to win seats in regional assemblies and take control of city administrations. Moreover, the liberalization of party rules has led to the creation of scores of new parties, many of which have managed to escape the Kremlin’s control. The creation of these new parties has ended up splitting the votes of the systemic opposition and United Russia.
A political scientist examines how regional elites shape the electoral fortunes of Russia’s hegemonic party, United Russia (UR). Using original data on regional legislative elections from 2003 to 2011, we show that UR performs better in those regions where regional governors control strong political machines. Russia’s leadership undercut its own electoral strategy by replacing popular elected governors with colorless bureaucrats who struggled to mobilize votes on behalf of United Russia. This is one of the reasons for United Russia’s poor performance in recent elections.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.