Authoritarian Elections: The Russian Case, 2011-2012

2005年以来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。部分原因是选举制度发生了变化：自2007年以来，没有单一成员选区，在政党名单竞争中提高了选举门槛，“反对所有人”的措施已经取消。在某种程度上，选举环境也发生了变化：尤其是媒体（首先是电视）被用来为亲克里姆林宫的政党和候选人谋利的方式，以及办公室本身的使用（俄罗斯人称之为“行政资源”）。越来越多的人一致认为，这种选举被恰当地称为“威权选举”，它们是世界上30到35个处于自由民主和赤裸裸独裁之间“灰色地带”的国家的特征。俄罗斯是一个典型的例子：到目前为止，它是世界上最大的国家，是一个核大国和联合国安理会常任理事国，也是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然存在相当大的不确定性，尤其是谁将从2012年起担任大权在握的总统。即将举行的选举将允许在这方面作出具有长期影响的决定性选择；对于社会科学家来说，同样重要的是，它们将为威权选举的实施提供迄今为止最详尽和最广泛的实践。本建议以2011-2012年的选举为个案研究，力求通过定量和定性手段对这些决定性的选举进行尽可能密切的审查。大部分资金将用于每次选举后立即进行的两次具有全国代表性的调查。但除此之外，还将为一系列焦点小组寻求资金，这些小组将被设计为提供“从下面”的观点，用参与者自己的话来概括，并补充通过调查获得的总体证据。此外，还将充分利用印刷和电子资料（包括中央选举委员会本身的资料）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the electoral threshold has been raised in the party-list competition, and the 'against all' facility has been withdrawn.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.