Authoritarian Elections: The Russian Case, 2011-2012

从2005年开始的一系列变化加强了后共产主义俄罗斯对选举过程的中央控制，以至于（对某些人来说）“选举”一词不再合适。在某种程度上，选举制度已经改变：自2007年以来，没有单一成员选区，政党名单竞争的选举门槛已经提高，“反对所有人”的设施已经取消。在某种程度上，选举环境也发生了变化：特别是在媒体（首先是电视）被用来帮助克里姆林宫友好的政党和候选人的方式上，而且在办公室本身的使用上（俄罗斯人称之为“行政资源”）。越来越多的人认为，这种选举被恰当地称为“独裁选举”，它们是世界上30到35个国家的特征，这些国家仍然处于自由民主和赤裸裸的独裁之间的“灰色地带”。俄罗斯是一个典型案例：迄今为止，中国是世界上最大的国家，一个核大国，联合国安理会理事会常任理事国，世界上最重要的能源供应国之一。然而，其近期的政治前景仍存在相当大的不确定性，特别是从2012年起将填补全能总统职位的人物的身份。即将到来的选举将允许在这方面做出决定性的选择，并产生长期影响;对于社会科学家来说同样重要的是，它们将为迄今为止进行的独裁选举提供最详尽、最广泛的实践。该提案以2011-2012年选举为案例研究，力求通过定量和定性手段，促进对这些决定性选举进行尽可能密切的审查。大部分资金将用于在每次选举后立即进行的两次全国代表性调查。但除此之外，还为一系列重点小组寻求资金，这些小组的目的是提供“从下面”的观点，用参与者自己的话说，并补充通过调查获得的综合证据。此外，还将充分利用印刷和电子来源（包括中央选举委员会本身的来源）以及实地访问。

A series of changes from 2005 onwards have strengthened central control of the electoral process in postcommunist Russia to such an extent that (for some) the term 'election' is no longer appropriate. Partly, the electoral system has changed: since 2007 there have been no single-member constituencies, the electoral threshold has been raised in the party-list competition, and the 'against all' facility has been withdrawn. In part also, the electoral environment has changed: particularly in the way in which the media (above all television) have been used to advantage Kremlin-friendly parties and candidates, but also in the use of office itself (what Russians call 'administrative resource'). There is increasing consensus that elections of this kind are appropriately termed 'authoritarian elections', and that they are characteristic of thirty to thirty-five states worldwide that have remained in the 'grey zone' between liberal democracy and naked dictatorship. Russia is a paradigm case: by far the world's largest country, a nuclear power and UN Security Council permanent member, and one of the world's most important energy suppliers. And yet considerable uncertainties remain about its immediate political future, and particularly the identity of the figure who will fill the all-powerful presidency from 2012 onwards. Its coming elections will allow decisive choices to be made in this respect, with long-term implications; no less important for the social scientist, they will provide the most elaborate and territorially extended exercise in the conduct of authoritarian elections that has yet taken place. Taking the elections of 2011-2012 as a case study, the proposal seeks to facilitate the closest possible examination of these decisive elections through both quantitative and qualitative means. A large part of the funding will be devoted to two national representative surveys, to be conducted immediately following each election. But in addition, funding is sought for a series of focus groups that will be designed to provide a perspective 'from below', framed in the words of the participants themselves, and complementary to the aggregate evidence that is available through the surveys. Full use will in addition be made of printed and electronic sources (including those of the Central Electoral Commission itself), and of field visits.