Russian Politics And Presidential Power

This is the first major assessment of the role of the presidency in Russia's difficult transition form communist rule. Huskey analyzes the establishment and functioning of the Russian presidency as an institution and in relation to the other leading institutions of state: the government, parliament, courts, and regional authorities. Although this is not a biography of the first president, Boris Yeltsin, his allies and his rivals loom large in the study of a critical phase in the creation of a new Russian political system.

Russian Politics and Presidential Power takes an in-depth look at the Russian presidency and uses it as a key to understanding Russian politics. Donald R. Kelley looks at presidents from Gorbachev to Putin as authoritarian, transformational leaders who set out to build the future, while sometimes rejecting and reinterpreting the work of past modernizers. Placing the presidency in this context helps readers understand both the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the nature of the Russian Federation that rose in its place. And by setting the presidency within a longer historical context, Kelley shows how the future of the presidency is dependent on other features of the political system.

Why has Russian democracy apparently survived and even strengthened under a presidential system, when so many other presidential regimes have decayed into authoritarian rule? And what are the origins of presidential power in modern Russia? Thomas M. Nichols argues that the answer lies in the relationship between political institutions and trust: where society, and consequently politics, is fractious and divided, structural safeguards inherent in presidentialism actually serve to strengthen democratic behaviour. The Russian presidency is not the cause of social turmoil in Russia, but rather a successful response to it. This book's emphasis on the social origins of Russian politics explains not only the unexpected survival of Russian democracy, but encourages a reconsideration of the relationship between institutions, social conditions, and democracy.

As a new president takes power in Russia, this book provides an analysis of the changing relationship between control of Russian television media and presidential power during the tenure of President Vladimir Putin. It argues that the conflicts within Russia’s political and economic elites, and President Putin’s attempts to rebuild the Russian state after its fragmentation during the Yeltsin administration, are the most significant causes of changes in Russian media. Tina Burrett demonstrates that President Putin sought to increase state control over television as part of a larger programme aimed at strengthening the power of the state and the position of the presidency at its apex, and that such control over the media was instrumental to the success of the president’s wider systemic changes that have redefined the Russian polity. The book also highlights the ways in which oligarchic media owners in Russia used television for their own political purposes, and that media manipulation was not the exclusive preserve of the Kremlin, but a common pattern of behaviour in elite struggles in the post-Soviet era. Basing its analysis predominately on interviews with key players in the Moscow media and political elites, and on secondary sources drawn from the Russian and Western media, the book examines broad themes that have been the subject of constant media interest, and have relevance beyond the confines of Russian politics.

Ever since the behavioral revolution reached Communist studies more than 2 decades ago, Western scholarship has tended to ignore the powerful and unwieldy institutional structure of the Soviet government. Today, suddenly, it is clear that the dramatic political and legislative reforms of the Gorbachev years will remain incomplete as long as the issues of state bureaucratic power and executive prerogative are unresolved. This volume, brings together original studies of the Soviet executive under Gorbachev by specialists including Barbara Chotiner, Stephen Fortescue, Brnda Horrigan, Ellen Jones, Wayne Limberg, T.H. Rigby and Louise Shelley. Among the topics covered are the major economic, national security and law enforcement ministries, the presidency, the cabinet and questions of presidential-ministerial, presidential-presidential, legislative-executive and party-state relations.

The book examines the way Russian presidents Yeltsin, Medvedev, and Putin have used their constitutional decree powers since the end of the Soviet regime. The Russian constitution gives the Russian president extremely broad decree-making power, but its exercise is constrained by both formal and informal considerations. The book compares the Russian president's powers to those of other presidents, including the executive powers of the United States president and those of Latin American presidents. The book traces the historical development of decree power in Russia from the first constitution in 1905 through the Soviet period and up to the present day, showing strong continuities over time. It concludes that Russia's president operates in a strategic environment, where he must anticipate the way other actors, such as the bureaucracy and the parliament, will respond to his use of decree power.

Why has Russian democracy apparently survived and even strengthened under a presidential system, when so many other presidential regimes have decayed into authoritarian rule? And what are the origins of presidential power in modern Russia? Thomas M. Nichols argues that the answer lies in the relationship between political institutions and trust: where society, and consequently politics, is fractious and divided, structural safeguards inherent in presidentialism actually serve to strengthen democratic behavior. The Russian presidency is not the cause of social turmoil in Russia, but rather a successful response to it. This book's emphasis on the social origins of Russian politics explains not only the unexpected survival of Russian democracy, but encourages a reconsideration of the relationship between institutions, social conditions, and democracy.