Darrell Slider

How United is United Russia? Regional Sources of Intra-party Conflict

The United Russia party has been given the role of the dominant party in the Russian political system, both at the national level and in all regions. Nevertheless, the party lacks many of the institutional characteristics that would allow it to play an autonomous role, particularly in regional politics. United Russia lacks an effective patronage system; personnel decisions are in the hands of other actors. The party is highly centralized, yet subject to pressure from governors who are only formally subordinate to the party. Intra-party democracy is minimal, and the regional party organs lack financial independence. Conflicts among regional elites take the form of a struggle for control over the party, and this hinders United Russias ability to establish strong regional organizations. This appears to be the desired outcome; the Kremlin uses the party as a screen to conceal its efforts to micro-manage regional political developments.

Embattled entrepreneurs: Soviet cooperatives in an unreformed economy

(1991). Embattled entrepreneurs: Soviet cooperatives in an unreformed economy. Soviet Studies: Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 797-821.

Party-Sponsored Public Opinion Research in the Soviet Union

Many Soviet party officials no longer consider adequate the traditional methods used for gauging popular attitudes, such as the analysis of letters and complaints. In the mid-1960s, a number of lower-level party organizations created public opinion research groups to conduct more systematic surveys. Institutional arrangements developed haphazardly, however, and the scope of research of most of these units was severely limited. In June 1983 plans were announced to create a national Center for the Study of Public Opinion. Much attention has been directed toward the public opinion center created by the Georgian Communist party as a possible model. In Georgia, the reform-minded first secretary has frequently cited public opinion surveys as an aid to policymaking and agenda setting.

Regional and Local Politics

The end of communism ushered in a free-for-all in regional and local politics, the ultimate outcome of which remains unpredictable. The main impact so far, as a result of the decline of central political control discussed in the previous chapter, has been the entrenchment and increased power of regional elites. There has also been a greater differentiation of regional politics. In some cases, a new post-Soviet elite has come to power. More typically, however, the same officials who comprised the old communist nomenklatura remain dominant in Russia’s republics and regions.

Regional Aspects of Policy Innovation in the Soviet Union

Relatively little attention in the West has been paid to the issue of policy innovation in the Soviet Union. Valerie Bunce has sought to explain patterns in innovation by examining the variation in national and republic budgets over time, relating this to changes in leadership at each level.1 Zvi Gitelman has explored the process by which innovations originating in Eastern Europe are adopted (or adapted) by the USSR.2

Politics Outside Russia

The breakup of the Soviet Union created a new set of nations on Russia’s periphery — the 14 other former Soviet republics, which had suddenly become independent republics. The term used most commonly in Russia to describe these nations is the ‘near abroad’. Many Russians had difficulty adjusting to the idea that these nations were truly independent, and there was considerable support among Russians for policies that would re-establish some of the patterns of relations that had characterised the Soviet and tsarist empires. Among the proponents of such policies were the former vice-president, Alexander Rutskoi, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal-Democratic Party, which received the most votes in party-list voting in the December 1993 parliamentary elections.

Gorbachev's first reform failure: Work‐place democratization

Among the many reforms introduced by Gorbachev after 1985 and only partly implemented, an early example was the proposal to extend democracy to the work‐place, which had both economic and political aims: to encourage greater productivity by giving workers a sense of participation and control, and to remove the dominance of the apparatus in management. The election of managers was an important early theme, followed by the creation of Councils of the Labour Collective, both of which were supported in the early years of perestroika. However, resistance and manipulation by ministries and by officials on the ground led to their ineffectual implementation, and new legislation adopted in 1987 was sufficiently unclear and ambiguous as to frustrate the intentions of the reformers, and the 1990 Law on Enterprises effectively killed off the reform attempt. Reform of enterprise management relations will henceforth depend on the enthusiasm and capacity of movements from below in their dealings with new managers and ow...