Kandidatuppsats i Statsvetenskap
Putin’s authoritarian state –
the consolidation of an authoritarian
x regime through the use of ‘soft powers’
Författare: Rebecca Esselgren Handledare: Daniel Silander Examinator: Helena Eklund Termin: HT18
Ämne: Statsvetenskap Nivå: III
Kurskod: 2SK30E
Abstract
Putin’s authoritarian rule reaches all areas of Russian society, this can be attributed to the soft powers that the regime uses to further establish their power. The basis of this research is a theory from the book Authoritarianism goes global, where the authors describes the importance of soft powers in an authoritarian regime. The soft powers analysed include election monitoring, disinformation, cyberspace security and civil society repression. The aim is to examine which soft powers play a part in the consolidation of the Russian regime, and the strategies used to further legitimise their political agenda. The three questions answered in this research is how did Putin’s first eight years in power affect the use of soft powers in Russia today? What soft powers have led to the consolidation of an authoritarian regime in Russia? And how does Putin use these soft powers to further legitimize his political agenda?
A qualitative text analysis was performed to answer the questions. The conclusions drawn is that Putin’s actions today are heavily influenced by his first presidency. Furthermore he extensively use the soft powers, and they have a significant influence on how the Russian authoritarian regime manage to consolidate power. Moreover the proficiency shown while manipulating these arenas leads to Putin being able to further legitimise his political agenda.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Purpose and questions ... 2
1.2 Method ... 3
1.3 Material ... 5
2. Previous research and theoretical framework ... 5
2.1 Previous research ... 6
2.2 Theoretical framework ... 9
2.3 Definitions... 10
2.3.1 Election Monitoring ... 10
2.3.2 Disinformation ... 11
2.3.3 Cyberspace security ... 13
2.3.4 Civil society repression ... 14
2.4 How do these soft powers interact with each another? ... 15
3. Analysis ... 16
3.1 Background ... 16
3.2 The importance of Putin’s first eight years in power ... 17
3.3 Putin’s use of Election Monitoring in Russia ... 18
3.4 Putin’s use of Disinformation in Russia ... 20
3.5 Putin’s use of Cyberspace security in Russia ... 22
3.6 Putin’s use of Civil society repression Russia ... 24
4. Conclusion ... 26
5. Bibliography ... 28
1
1. Introduction
For the past century there has been an increase of nations moving from authoritarian regimes to liberal democratic countries. There are many underlying reasons as well as developments that enable these states to advance from a restricted authoritarian state to a free liberal democracy.1 However it seems as though some non-democratic countries are better at resisting the changes that have the possibility of contributing to the development of a democracy. One of these countries is Russia.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Boris Yeltsin elected president of Russia, in what was considered a free and fair election. Yeltsin’s time in office was defined by a spark of positive development with the introduction of the first democratic statute as well as a free and strong press.2 Though Yeltsin advanced some areas in society, Russia was still characterised by economic and political difficulties during his eight years in power. The chaos in both the economic and political sphere was not resolved until Vladimir Putin came to power in the year of 2000. Putin started his time in office by instating major reforms in the economic spectrum and managed to reverse the issues, and the economy started to thrive. Behind the scenes Putin was also centralising the power and started to constrict the media and the civil society as well as increasing his control over the political arena.3
Putin’s time in office has been defined by restrictions on almost every area in society. The constraints introduced to the media, the political domain as well as the resilient economy together with a strong military has led Russia down a path from democratic development to an authoritarian constraint.4 Right from the beginning Putin’s commitment to Russia has never been a commitment to democracy which has meant not only a standstill for the possible development of a democracy but a reversal of the already developed areas.5 Authoritarian regimes now have a different agenda in that they no longer just want to stop democratic development in their countries they want to reverse all traces of the democratic surge.6
1 L. Diamond, Spirit of democracy, – the struggle to build free societies throughout the world, New York, HENRY HOLT and COMPANY LLC, 2008, p. 6.
2 S. Skott, Det nya Ryssland och arvet efter Sovjet, 2nd edn., Finland, Hjalmarsson & Högberg, 2009, p. 298.
3 T. Denk and C. Anckar, Komperativ Politik – nio politiska system, Spain, Studentlitteratur, 2015, p. 220.
4 S. Skott, Det nya Ryssland och arvet efter Sovjet, p. 298.
5 Ibid, p. 339.
6 L. Diamond, M. Plattner, and C. Walker, Authoritarianism goes global – a challenge to democracy, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2016, p. 7.
2
The few signs that existed of a possible democracy in Russia during the 90s is today something that is only a memory. There is no real threat to the sitting regime and Putin has managed to establish his authoritarian state in every aspect of society.7 The mechanisms called soft powers are used by regimes to assert their power both internationally and nationally, these soft power arenas will be the focus of this research.8
Putin succeeded to set the foundation of his authoritarian state to such an extent that when his growing power was noticed by the population it was hard for them to reverse the emergent authoritarian regime.9 Coups by authoritarian forces was believed to be the real threat to the growing democracy however the real threat turned out to be Vladimir Putin and his
supporters. They have managed to gain unhindered power while still holding elections, the reasons for their stems from the government’s skills in manipulating the population, the media and the political arena.10
1.1 Purpose and questions
The aim of the research is to investigate what soft powers play a part in the consolidation of the authoritarian regime in Russia and what strategies the current regime uses to further legitimise its political agenda. Manipulating different areas in society is something that authoritarian regimes show great expertise in. Therefore, this research will investigate different reforms of Russia, the areas included in the analysis is election monitoring,
disinformation, cyberspace security and civil society repression. These areas are chosen due to the theoretical framework presented later in this study.
The purpose of this research is to examine what factors continue to affect the consolidation of power in Russia and to what extent they affect the further development of an authoritarian state. To answer the questions in the best way possible the timeframe for the investigation will be focused on Putin’s time in office since 2012, this is because it relates to the
authoritarian regime in Russia today. To complement this a question regarding Putin’s first presidency will be asked to give a further understanding of the conditions that exist in Russia at the moment.
7 M. Bader and H. Schmeets, ‘Does international election observation deter and detect fraud? Evidence from Russia’, Journal of Representative Democracy, vol. 49. No. 4, 2013, p. 1-14.
8 L. Diamond, M. Plattner, and C. Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 3.
9 T. Denk and C. Anckar, Komperativ Politik, p. 221.
10 A. Evans, ‘The failure of democratisation in Russia: a comparative perspective’, Journal of Eurasian Studies, vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, p. 40-51.
3
This research is relevant because examining this area is not just scrutinising Russia and Putin but rather it is about researching the importance of a strong leader in an authoritarian state and the use of different power mechanism to consolidate power, both which are ongoing discussions within the social sciences. So in other words this study is a case of investigating strategies used by regimes to stay in power.11
From a societal perspective this research is relevant because Russia is constantly discussed in the media. Their supposed involvement in the US election, their participation in the Syrian civil war as well as their constant place on the UN Security Council means that Putin has a significant influence on the international arena. This means that what transpires in Russia affects not just the local population but also the surrounding world. The importance of Russia and their position in the world should not be underestimated.12
The questions that this research will answer is:
- How did Putin’s first eight years in power affect the use of soft powers in Russia today?
- What soft powers have led to the consolidation of an authoritarian regime in Russia?
- How does Putin use these soft powers to further legitimize his political agenda?
1.2 Method
To complement the purpose and questions presented above the next part will discuss the method that will be the outline of the analysis in this investigation.
The theory used will be the base of the entire research. This means that the formation that will be used is theory-consuming. What will be discussed and analysed is based around the specific case and the rest of the material that will be collected is in some way related to the factors that will be analysed.13 The theory-consuming foundation that will be used is to some extent also theory-testing since the theory-testing formation assesses the reliability of theories and investigate the conditions of the theories used.14
11 P. Esaiasson, et al, Metodpraktikan – konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad, 4th edn., Vällinby, Nordstedts Juridik, 2012, p. 32.
12 D. Herspring, Putin’s Russia – past imperfect, future uncertain, 3rd edn., Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007, p. 203.
13 P. Esaiasson, et al, Metodpraktikan, p. 41.
14 A. George, and A. Bennett, Case studies and theory development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, BCSIA, 2005, p. 75.
4
However to execute the analysis, the empirical research will be examined in relation to how the theory works. Therefore the theory-consuming structure is the primary chosen formation due to the fact that the theory chosen provides the foundation of the entire research, and the factors discussed to explain the theory are secondary sources.15
There are many theories that discuss authoritarian states and the factors that affect the regimes power, the present theory was chosen as it presents an extensive view of different factors. The different areas of the theory manage to explain ways in which an authoritarian state manages to stay in power and this is why it was chosen. Other theories could also have been used, however to limit the research and answer the questions within a certain boundary it was deemed appropriate to only use this theory. The method that will be used is a
qualitative text analysis. This method was chosen because the text that will be read is
analysed to see if there is a relation to the questions that will be asked. In this way of writing the researcher has a focus on the importance of the text that is being investigated and whether it is possible to draw any conclusions from the text.16
In this research this text analysis will be accomplished using the chosen theory and trying it against different empirical material such as articles to see if the conclusions that are drawn in the theory are trustworthy. What must be taken into consideration when using this method is the issue of reliability since the texts analysed have the possibility of bias, to circumvent this issue several texts will be analysed in hope that it strengthens the validity of the research.
Furthermore it is important to consider the researcher’s possible interpretations since
experiences and background can affect the understanding of a certain text. This issue can be tackled by the researcher through trying to recognize their own particular understanding and try to identify what social contexts and scientific culture the research is taking place in.17 There is a risk with using this type of research because when choosing different articles it is possible to miss essential material since it is impossible to read every text about every subject. However this method is deemed preferable as opposed to other methods due to the fact that the entirety of the text is caught when using this type of research.18
15 P. Esaiasson, et al, Metodpraktikan, p. 42.
16 Ibid.
17 G. Bergström, and K. Boréus, Textens Mening och Makt – metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig text och diskurs analys, 2nd edn., India, Replika Press Pvt Ltd, 2005, p. 35.
18 P. Esaiasson, et al, Metodpraktikan, p. 210.
5
The central message of the text is the focus point and to find the fundamental arguments in a text is believed to be more important than only concentrating on parts of the text.19
Since the terms used in the research is defined early on it is easier to decide what relevant areas in the texts should be used this means that the research becomes more achievable.20 1.3 Material
Now the basis of the material will be explained by going through how the material was collected and how it will be used in the research.
The main material that will be used for this research is sourced from the book
Authoritarianism goes global – a challenge to democracy written by Larry Diamond, Marc F.
Plattner and Christopher Walker. The other material that will be collected is from other books that discuss Russia as an authoritarian state. However the main source the material is
allocated from academic sources online, as there is a vast array of information available electronically. Books will be used as the basis and to provide facts however the main information will be taken from articles found through the Linnaeus University’s search engine as well as Google Scholar. The articles found on these sites are considered to increase the validity of the research and provide the analysis with high value sources since the articles from these sights have been published in various journals. Though the journals used in the research are respected academically in the international sphere and known to be non-biased the fact that western authors as well as western based journals are used is kept in mind throughout this investigation.
There are endless sources that can be chosen for this research however to limit the scope of the investigation the articles that are chosen are deemed directly relevant for answering the questions in the analysis.
2. Previous research and theoretical framework
In this part, previous research will be explained to further the understanding of the research and gain knowledge surrounding other studies done in this area. Moreover the theoretic framework will also be discussed, the entire research will be formed around the theory presented and the analysis will be assembled with the main theory as its core.
19 P. Esaiasson, et al, Metodpraktikan, p. 210.
20 Ibid, p. 217.
6
Further, the terms used in the research will be defined so that there can be no misconception regarding the expressions in the investigation. In addition the different arenas will also be discussed in relation to how they interact with each other.
2.1 Previous research
In this part an overview of prior studies will be presented to get a comprehensive outlook on the research problem presented earlier. To understand this research one has to understand how states achieve legitimacy. Further one must also recognise the importance of the shift in the power mechanism of how states exercise their use of power. This part of the research is discussed to explain the decision to have soft powers as the focus of this investigation and consequently explain the indicators that this research is based on.
Researcher Bo Rothstein challenges the idea that a democratic country automatically achieve legitimacy just because they represent the people in a direct way through elections.
According to Rothstein achieving legitimacy depends on the efficiency of the government rather than the input side of the political system. Legitimacy needs to be created and
maintained and depends on the output of the government. People might accept their leaders not just because of a fair election but also based on tradition, appeal and the government’s success, or a belief of success. However, it is easier to reach legitimacy through an election since the people feel as if they have taken part in the process and therefore accept that the government officials represent them in a fair way. That is not to say to that legitimacy cannot be achieved through other ways, it just means that the most direct way is through elections according to the western belief. The population of a country can believe that the government warrants legitimacy when in truth they are misled by the government.21
Traditionally states exercised their power through a hard approach which entailed military operations done to cripple other states, this was the only way for a state to achieve legitimacy both internationally and nationally. The use of hard powers seek to damage the initiatives of the other state so that they submit to the will of the other. This differs from the soft power approach in that instead it focuses on changing the ideals of a state through peaceful means by for example education and counselling.22
21 B. Rothstein, ‘Creating political legitimacy – electoral democracy versus quality of government’, American Behavioural Studies, vol. 53, No. 3, 2009, p. 311-330.
22 S. Mohammed Ad’ha Aljunied, ‘Countering Terrorism in Maritime Southeast Asia: soft and hard power approaches’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 47. No. 6, 2011, p. 652-665.
7
The introduction of the soft approach led to the regimes finding it hard to justify the use of violence when soft tactics has been seen to be successful. The development of soft powers subsequently led to a change in the power mechanisms used by states. 23
Previously the common way to handle a security risk was to show off one’s military might but suddenly the entire concept of defence started to mean social unity instead.That is not to say that the hard power approach is not seen in today’s conflicts however a hard action can only be taken when an issue has already arisen, by using a more soft method the roots of the issue could be solved before the challenge has even presented itself. The decline in
acceptance of the hard approach has led to a development in the use of power mechanism approaches.24 Therefore there lies an importance as to how states now use the soft power approach, and it has become the more common way to exercise power.
Coalitions in modern times are more complex than they were previously in history since with new actors in world politics comes new dimensions to security.25 The researcher Joseph Nye states that since the mechanisms of power have changed so have the strategies of regimes.
The focus no longer lies on military force but rather on economic and ecological issues that are now more important to people meaning they are more important to politicians.26 The world’s leading countries are less able to use more traditional power resources to further their influence, the reasons for this could be the new developments in economy, transnational actors, the progresses in technology, and the changing issues in the political arena.27 Without the use of military force, information has become a central component in world politics and so information has become power and especially if a regime is able to control it whether that be by changing the information provided or containing it all together. With this new information-based economy material resources have become less important and the expertise of organisations have gained a greater importance. With these trends the regimes that are successfully able to achieve their goals might get smaller states to follow their ideals.
So in this modern world it is more beneficial for a regime to use soft powers to change the wants of a country rather than ordering them to change their beliefs.28
23 S. Mohammed Ad’ha Aljunied, ‘Countering Terrorism in Maritime Southeast Asia: soft and hard power approaches’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 47. No. 6, 2011, p. 652-665.
24 Ibid.
25 J. Nye, ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 80. No. 153, 1990, p. 157.
26 Ibid, p. 158.
27 Ibid, p, 161.
28 Ibid, p. 166.
8
Additionally, as the scholar Geun Lee writes, soft powers are used when different regimes choose to focus on changing or creating their own perception of an idea to the public of a certain country. The tactic is used to set a certain agenda to achieve the goal of the regime, the construction of the ideal the regimes project is done through symbolic resources that lead to a behavioural change in others. The usage of soft powers is often applied when regimes wants to settle an issue through peaceful measures rather than through military operations or economic sanctions. That is not to say that using soft powers means the elimination of a hard tactic as well, rather it means that the focus lies more on ideal than on material resources.
Using a soft power tactic relies on domestic support since failure can lead to national political repercussions therefore it is important for regimes to consider their policy goals both
nationally and internationally before projecting their perception onto their population.29 Moreover as Martin Jacques claims in his article “The beginning of a new world order”
democracy is only one part of what decides a countries legitimacy, a high level of satisfaction also represents a part in ensuring legitimacy of a country. As the relationship that the Western world have with the developing world changes so could the current world order. Therefore one can say that using soft power mechanism challenge the political hegemony currently held by the West. It might seem implausible that the Western world would want to imitate the governance of China for example since their regime does not have democratic values,
however by using soft powers successfully it could lead to a recognition of other strengths in their state. In the Western world, democratic views are highly valued since they are believed to be the best alternative at the present time and soft powers have the ability to change this or at least make citizens question the importance of democracy.30
To sum up one can say that legitimacy is essential for a government to be able to stay in power, and it can be achieved through many means, although elections are the most common.
Furthermore, previously power mechanisms was used to gain legitimacy through a hard approach, but there has been a shift in how states exercise power. This has been influenced by the development of globalisation and subsequently as information has become more
important, so has the use of soft powers.
29 G. Lee, ‘The clash of soft powers between China and Japan: synergy and dilemmas at the six party talks’, Asian Perspective, vol, 34. No. 2, 2010, p. 113-117.
30 M. Jacques, ‘The beginning of a new world order’, New statesman, vol. 141. No. 5102, 2012, p. 22-27.
9
The purpose of the discussion in this part was to broaden the understanding of legitimacy and the power mechanisms that exist in both democratic and authoritarian states. These earlier studies present the interpretation done relating to legitimacy and soft powers leading to a clarification to the tools that will be used in this research.
2.2 Theoretical framework
To limit the research done, solely one theory will be the focus of this analysis. The theory is taken from the book Authoritarianism goes global – a challenge to democracy written by Diamond, Plattner and Walker. The authors claim that since the mid-2000s there has been a backlash against democracy where regimes began to restrain independent voices in society.31 They refer to something called the ‘big five’ which is a reference to the countries that led the backlash. These countries according to the theory is China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. As stated in the introduction the authors believe that these countries now have a different agenda; they no longer just want to stop democratic development, rather they want to reverse all traces of the democratic surge. The main focus of this research will be around what the authors call soft powers, which are mechanisms used by the different regimes to assert their power both internationally and nationally.32 There are multiple soft powers but for the purpose of this research, the following have been selected:
- Election monitoring - Disinformation - Cyberspace security - Civil society repression
According to this theory these four areas are either manipulated or used in authoritarian countries for the regime to further establish their power. In the first chosen soft power the theory claims that election monitoring has become an essential part of democracy in that in watches over the civil representation and the accountability of the government. Authoritarian regimes are able to undermine this part of the election process by evading responsibility while using certain tactics to avoid being caught.33
31 L. Diamond, M. Plattner, and C. Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 3.
32 Ibid, p. 7.
33 Ibid, p. 10-11.
10
The second chosen arena is disinformation which is when the state decides to convey their ideas to the public by spreading false information rather than the truth.34 The third chosen soft power is cyberspace security which in the last couple of years has turned into a powerful tool that authoritarian states use to their advantage. The development of the internet means that authoritarian regimes have another area of society that they are able to control by suppressing and shrinking the space of the opposition.35 The last soft power chosen is civil society
repression, the space that the civil society offers in democratic countries is essential since it represents the interest of the people. Authoritarian states chose to limit their countries civil society by destroying all independent institutions due to the risk of potential opposition. Civil society repression is necessary for authoritarian states in order to restrict the platform of the opposition.36
2.3 Definitions
In this part of the research the different soft powers will be introduced so that the understanding of the arenas are the same for all readers.
2.3.1 Election monitoring
Election monitoring is a common practice that countries use in today’s society, it has been used for a long time however it was not until during the so called third wave during the 1970’s that it became an essential part of the democratic process. Election monitoring allows for citizens and international organisations to view the election process to ensure that there is no tampering during the course of the election. To achieve legitimacy both nationally and internationally it has become a democratic norm to use this practice. The aim of using election monitoring is to make sure that the citizens in a country vote in an election that contains no deception.37 To establish credibility to an election, transparency must be present and to uphold this transparency organisations act as the eyes of the citizens by implementing the process of election monitoring and thereby confirming the elections’ validity.38
34 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 10-11.
35 Ibid, p. 12.
36 Ibid, p. 13.
37 Ibid, p. 139.
38 Ibid.
11
Having elections are considered to be crucial to a democratic society therefore it is important to make sure that the process retains a high standard. Election monitoring wants to uphold this standard by ensuring freedom of expression and that everyone is able to participate.39 Election monitoring observe the media, the states transparency as well as equal treatment for the entire population. The election monitoring observers note these factors to ensure the validity of the election process. If even one of the factors are seen to be manipulated the entire election comes into question, and loses its validity.40
For the monitoring organisations the process begins with a formal invitation from the state where they will gain access to documents that they normally would not be allowed to
observe. The regime has some control of this process since they can decide on who they want to invite to monitor their election, so some areas of the election process still lay in their hands.41
Authoritarian regimes are still hesitant in allowing election monitoring to take place in their country despite them having some control over preforms the monitoring. This is due to the fact that many authoritarian states are known to manipulate their election and by allowing observers into their country their manipulations are at a higher risk of being discovered. If many different monitoring institutions come to the same conclusions about their election process it could possibly undermine the power of the state in question.42 Different tactics are therefore employed by the regimes to uphold a genuine election when it is anything but.
Because while the authoritarian states must use election monitoring to have legitimacy at the same time they also have to manipulate the election process to be able to stay in power.43 2.3.2 Disinformation
Transparency is a vital component of a democratic country since the population should be able to rely on their own government and trust that they provide them with the correct information.44
39 J. Kelley, ‘Assessing the Complex Evolution of Norms: The rise of the International Election Monitoring’, International Organisation, vol. 62. No. 2, 2008, p. 221-255.
40 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 141.
41 J. Kelley, ‘The more the merrier? The effects of having multiple international election monitoring organisations’, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 7, no. 1, 2009, p. 59.
42 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 141.
43 Ibid.
44 D. Fallis, ‘What is Disinformation?’, Library Trends, vol. 63. no. 3, 2015, p. 401-426.
12
Nevertheless it is common for authoritarian regimes to use oppression to further their stance in society where one of the most common forces of oppression that regimes employ are disinformation. This is when a regime deliberately misinform the information that is given to the public.45 Misleading the public by giving them wrongful information have the possibility of being harmful and does have a significant impact on the people. Disinformation can be used through many different channels but in every route it is when the regime purposely give wrongful information to the public to gain trust or do harm. A common way to use
disinformation is through deceiving advertisement that the regime provides to the public by projecting an image they want their citizens to see and believe.46
Disinformation is something that has been used for a long time so it is not a new concept however it has grown in the last couple of years due to the development of new technological channels. These new developments such as social media has made the use of this practice much easier since regimes has the ability to forbid certain websites and therefore
disinformation has become more common in recent years.47
Through time regimes have become apt at using the media and other areas to their advantage and they have many strategies of gaining more control. For instance the information provided to the public holds just enough truth about real events that are twisted in a skilful way so that it works in the regime’s advantage. Through this the regime is able to increase their
authenticity.48 Disinformation, on the other hand, is more than just the regime providing their population with wrongful information; it is qualified systematic disturbances by the
established order which are made through strategic planning meaning that for the average citizen this deception is hard to detect.49 In a democratic country is it essential to be given trustworthy information through the media and the freedom that this provides and its
importance cannot be underestimated. When information is given properly to the population through all channels it has the possibility of increasing the validity of the regime and the respect as well as the integrity of the government.50
45 D. Fallis, ‘What is Disinformation?’, p. 401-426.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 L. Bennett, and S. Livingston, ‘The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline in democratic order’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, 2018, p. 124.
49 Ibid.
50 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 150.
13
It takes more than simply providing proof that the information given to the population is false, in order to overcome the issue of using disinformation. The change needs to go deeper and this is done by repairing broken political institutions and developing the democratic values of the citizens.51
2.3.3 Cyberspace security
The new developments in technology has led to an entire new arena emerging that authoritarian states now use to their advantage.52 This arena is called cyberspace and it is where electronics are utilised to exchange information through different network systems and corporeal organisations. This arena is not specifically the internet, though internet is a part of the cyberspace. Cyberspace is a man-made domain that is the result of the world-wide interconnectedness that is globalisation. It has provided a forum through which ideas and thoughts can be shared globally with half of humanity.53
The areas in which this component plays a major role is within the economic, political and social sphere. This has led to cyberspace becoming a well-respected domain that to many is considered equal to sea, space air and land.54 The new development of this area has also led to new challenges for the authoritarian regimes, since they have had to adapt to the situation.
Autocratic regimes has shown great resilience to the new threats this arena presents and also a good capacity for being able to tackle the new problems that has arisen.
It is often believed that authoritarian regimes do not have the ability to develop, however in this case they have shown that they are anything but non-adaptable.55 To be able to control the cyberspace the authoritarian regimes will apply more restrictions by filtering the content the population have access to and limiting the internet access as well as monitoring the behaviour of their citizens. The regimes can also use this area to their advantage by
promoting their interests and giving out their own perception of information that will further legitimise their power.56
51 L. Bennett, and S. Livingston, ‘The disinformation order’, p. 125.
52 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 199.
53 R. Deibert, and R. Rohozinski, ‘Risking Security: Policies and Paradoxes of Cyberspace Security’, International Political Sociology, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010, p. 15-32.
54 Ibid.
55 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 198.
56 S. Kalathil, and T. Boas, ‘The internet and state control in authoritarian regimes: China, Cuba and the counterrevolution’, First Monday, vol. 6, no. 8, 2001.
14
Since cyberspace is available to people in every part of the world it also means that it
presents a new security risk, since the information is no longer contained just within a single country. The state systems are not able to counter the threats this arena has created in the same way. It is not possible for an authoritarian regime to claim control over the entire cyberspace since it is such a vast space that is always evolving leading to some areas always being able to avoid state control.57
2.3.4 Civil society repression
In a democratic country the civil society needs to be a well-functioning part of society that works independently away from the state.58 The civil society in democratic countries is an area that is respected since it allows for the state, organisations and individuals to create bonds of cooperation. The economic and political arena both benefit from having a successful civil society therefore it is considered advantageous to have an independent civil society, further it also promotes democracy.59
For an authoritarian regime this is why they are hesitant in allowing a flourishing civil society since it widens the opportunity for a democratic culture to develop.60 Having an independent population where people have a chance at controlling their own lives and beliefs is for an authoritarian regime a high risk. This is because the citizens could develop a more critical view of the government and this is something that authoritarian leaders want to avoid to further secure their own power.61 When there are no independent organisations the population turns to the state-driven ones since they are the only ones left available, and when all
institutions are run by the sitting regime there is no space available for the individual to be independent.62 The ultimate aim is to have a civil society that allows the citizens a safe haven from the state powers and if it is fully functioning it should balance the power of the state so that the quality of life is equal for everyone.63
57 R. Deibert, and R. Rohozinski, ‘Risking Security’, p. 15-32.
58 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 153.
59 F. Fukuyama, ‘Social capital, civil society and development’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1, 2001, p.
7.
60 Ibid.
61 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 153.
62 Ibid, p. 155.
63 F. Fukuyama, ‘Social capital, civil society and development’, p. 8.
15
In the case of a non-functioning civil society the government can intervene to try and sort out the individuals they feel are not capable of fixing the issues themselves. It is possible that when this opening is presented to the state it is easy for them to insert a hand into the civil society and through there into every part of society leading to a low level of opposition.64 The social interaction that people have with each other are shaped by social capital which has a close relation to the civil society.65
However social capital can only exist when there is a strong relationship between individuals and this is only possible if there is a well-functioning civil society, since social capital is seen in the patterns of behaviour of the interaction between individuals.66 The bonds of trust that the civil society creates are important since it unites the population through cooperation and through that the country’s social capital is endorsed. The collaboration between individuals should not be underestimated since good cooperation leads to a stronger society. When the average citizens is encouraged to work for independence it increases the development, however having an independent society is something that every authoritarian regime fear.67 2.4 How do these ‘soft powers’ interact with each other?
The different soft powers chosen for this investigation are effective independently however together they permit the regime to implement more control. The interaction between the soft powers advance both the use of them as well as their efficiency. The information provided in this part consists of conclusions drawn based on the different definitions presented above.
The regime uses disinformation to misinform the population and to twist the truth in their favour.68 This enables the other soft powers since they all depend on the population not protesting against the regime. Hence if the population is not aware of the full extent of the regime’s strategical moves, forming an opposition is not something they consider doing.
Further repressing the civil society means that the connections between individuals are limited and the citizens do not have a place to form their own ideas.69
64 F. Fukuyama, ‘Social capital, civil society and development’, p. 8.
65 A. Tewari, ‘Social capital, civil society and development: key to contemporary administrative reforms approach’, Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 53, no. 3, 2007, p. 456-457.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 L. Bennett, and S. Livingston, ‘The disinformation order’, p. 123.
69 Diamond, Plattner & Walker, Authoritarianism goes global, p. 153.
16
The actions of the regime are often defended in the media with immense skill, so that when critics point out certain areas that do not correlate such as election manipulation or
questioning restrictions, the calculated management done by the regime of the highest skill is hard to object.70 The expertise that regimes exert when manipulating the media enables them further use the soft powers since their actions are veritably undetectable. Alone these soft powers could work, but together they act more efficiently and that adds strength to the regime contributing to a solid affirmation of their powers.
3. Analysis
In this part of the investigation the questions of the research will be answered. This will be done by applying the soft powers presented on a specific case which is in this study is the Russian regime and Putin. Examples and articles obtained will be discussed to support the evidence provided in relation to Putin’s Russia. To present a broader view of the
circumstances that exist in Russia at the moment the first part of the analysis will present a brief background view of Russia. Then Putin’s first term in office between 2000 and 2008 will be discussed to see if his first presidency in some way enabled the use of soft powers at the present. The second part of the analysis will present a view on Putin’s use of the different soft powers and how they affect the current conditions in Russia.
3.1 Background
Russia was greatly affected by the fall of the Soviet Union since it resulted in an extensive split in the region where the Eastern European countries found it problematic to move away from the shadow of the former Soviet state, resulting in the authoritarian features managing to take hold in their countries.71 When Boris Yeltsin came to power after a significant power struggle in 1993 the country’s economy and political powers merged with each other when personal friends where invited into the regime. This created a society where millions of the population were living below the poverty line and starving due to the instability of the
government. Because of this the population began to associate democracy with an unravelling society and when the economic crisis hit in 1998, the situation gradually worsened.72
70 L. Bennett, and S. Livingston, ‘The disinformation order’, p. 124.
71 L. Diamond, The Spirit of Democracy, p. 191.
72 T. Denk and C. Anckar, Komperativ Politik, p. 220.
17
The fact that the situation was not resolved until Putin was elected, made the population grateful for the positive changes in their lives. The economic, social, and for some the
political, lives were improved by Putin. This fact has significantly influenced his ability to be able to stay in power for so long.73 The goals that Putin had were clear from the start with a defined focus on centralising the power by restoring state control through limited political competition and taking control over communication areas, some of his goals went unnoticed by the population due to his popularity.74
3.2 The importance of Putin’s first eight years in power
To understand how Putin uses the soft powers to consolidate his authoritarian regime and how he uses them to further legitimise his current political agenda one needs to understand how the present conditions have been impacted by Putin’s first presidency and his earlier reforms. This part of the analysis will therefore present the conditions that have enabled Putin to use the soft powers in today’s Russia.
Winston Churchill once said that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in an enigma” which still holds true today.75 And in many ways this riddle has become much harder to solve since Putin came to power due to the fact that he has managed to insert his influence into every area of society while sill upholding his popularity and at the same time run a strong authoritarian state. Why Putin is such a strong figure in Russia today has many reasons however the conditions he inherited from Yeltsin is one important factor.76
Firstly it is important to point out that at the start the branches of government such as the Duma were very vulnerable and the population was susceptible to change. These
circumstances allowed Putin to set the rules of the game and gave him the ability to further cultivate his ideas. Furthermore Putin decided to reshuffle his cabinet under the guise of diminishing the corruption and changing the government to a modern administration.77
73 T. Denk and C. Anckar, Komperativ Politik, p. 220.
74 S. Fish, ‘Putin’s Path’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 12, no. 4, 2001, p. 71.
75 A. Applebaum, ‘Putin’s Grand Strategy’, South Central Review, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, p. 22.
76 G. Graeme, ‘The Basis of Putin’s Power’, Russian Politics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, p. 46-69.
77 S. Hashim, ‘High-modernism and its limits – assessing state incapacity in Putin’s Russia, 2000-2008’
Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 50. No. 3, 2017, p. 195-205
18
This could sound as an admirable idea, however in truth this only gave Putin the capability to decide who he wanted in his government which means he could remove those who he
thought might oppose him.78 At the same time Putin also removed the elections for governors and mayors which meant he could appoint those he deemed appropriate leading to even less opposition in his government.79 This meant that the regime Putin established allowed him to interfere at his own convenience in all areas of society these include, among others, the judicial, military, economic and private spheres. This became possible due to the lack of resistance that Putin created with his reforms. Further the elite became dependent on Putin and his will which established his position even more.80 Together with this the economy was for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union thriving leading to millions of Russian’s joining the middle-class, which in turn made the population less worried when certain questionable reforms became law.81
3.3 Putin’s use of Election Monitoring in Russia
Using election monitoring has become a democratic norm and Putin knows this so he uses election monitoring to his advantage to be able to stay in power. However by holding up the pretence that Russia is somewhat of a democratic country Putin is also putting himself and his one party state at risk when the electoral rules to some extent also applies to his regime.
By keeping up the democratic appearances Putin is taking a greater risk by giving his
opponents a way to undermine his power. This means that maintaining a high standard in his manipulations of the electoral process is necessary.82
A strategic move by Putin’s government is to specifically invite a certain amount of critics and equally as many supporters meaning that a statement made by either side can be
disapproved by the other.83 Putin upholds this way of thinking in many areas, for example if a protest is taking place with critics of his regime he allows this only if there is also a protest in another part of Russia that showcases his supporters, by doing this neither side can have the upper-hand. This also gives the illusion of democracy since he allows them to demonstrate.84
78 S. Hashim, ‘High-modernism and its limits’, p. 195-205.
79 P. Smith, ‘Putin’s Russia’, New York Times Upfront, vol. 145. No. 3, 2012, p. 16-17.
80 C. Monday, ‘Privatization to Putinization: the genesis of Russia’s hobbled oligarchy’, Communist and Post- Communist Studies, vol. 50. No. 4, 2017, p. 303-317.
81 P. Smith, ‘Putin’s Russia’, p. 16-17.
82 S. Sestanovich, ’Putin’s invented oppositon’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 18. No. 2, 2007, p. 122-V.
83 J. Kelley, ‘The more the merrier? The effects of having multiple international election monitoring organisations’, p. 59.
84 J. Nichol, ‘Russia’s March 2012 presidential election: outcome and implications’, Current Politics and Economics of Russia, Eastern and Central Europe, vol. 37. No. 3/4, 2012, p. 357-373.
19
It can be said that election monitoring is done not only to please the population but also allows a country to maintain legitimacy in the global arena, to gain international respect the practice continues to be important. However, just because an election monitoring
organisation is considered trustful by the majority one has to consider that they can all be impartial to some extent.85
One of the most prominent election monitoring organisations is the OSCE which stands for Organisations for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This organisation is the head of many smaller monitoring organisation, their final report holds a high value in the international sphere.86 In their report of the 2012 election they do not state outright that the election was a scam, however in some areas it is implicated; they claim that there was obvious bias towards a specific candidate and the favour of the ruling party was clear. While they did not detect a direct observation of fraud it is indicated in their report that certain actions can clearly point to manipulations.87
As can be seen in the numbers of how many people voted in the election, the turnout being exceptionally high is beneficial to Putin and his party, however conversely the numbers were disproportional in that they were suspiciously close to round numbers which could have been an indication that there was some fraud in the process; nevertheless, there is no concreate evidence of this.88 The Western observers during this election did in the end conclude that the election was free but not fair, their statement was disapproved by another election monitoring organisation called CIS, also known as the Commonwealth of Independent States. This organisation is made up of 10 former Soviet countries and in their report they claim that democratic values were upheld which indicates that a fair election was held, their statement directly opposes the Western organisations claims.89
85 J. Kelley, ‘Election observers and their biases’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 21. No. 3, 2010, p. 158.
86 Bader, M, and H. Schmeets, ‘Does international election observation deter and detect fraud? Evidence from Russia’, p. 1-14.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 W. Clarke, ‘The 2012 presidential election in Russia: Putin returns’, Electoral Studies, vol. 32, no 2, 2013, p.
374-377
20
Furthermore Putin is aware that there are doubts of his legitimacy and the authenticity of his election, and he counteracts these doubts with confusion. The Central Election Commission of Russia is the institution that provides the international organisations with the data collected from the election, the information the Commission has is provided by the regime meaning that they have direct control over what numbers they want to share.
Therefore the monitoring organisations cannot explicitly see if manipulation of the election has taken place, all they can do is investigate other countries where fraud has been known to happen and see if the numbers correlate. Meaning that their reports can be more easily
disapproved since the election monitoring organisations are not able to prove their claims to a high level of certainty.90
To sum up, it can be concluded that Putin uses the election monitoring on his own terms, he upholds some of the election principles while still manipulating the process just enough to not get caught in the act. He does this by inviting a specific amount of election observers that are made up of critics but also of supporters. He also manages to confuse the observers by controlling the information that they are provided with. All of this indicates a high level of skill.
3.4 Putin’s use of disinformation in Russia
In Russia the population gets most of their information from the government through the television or through newspapers; this is what will be discussed in this part of the analysis.
Social media can also be considered an area that is affected by disinformation however that part of the research will be brought up when cyberspace security is discussed since it falls under that category. The more traditional ways of disinformation will be the focus during this part.
Despite the fact that the internet has become a widespread phenomenon, it is something that the rural population of Russia is not able to take part in. As a result, the television becomes their primary source of information.91
90 M. Bader and H. Schmeets, ‘Does international election observation deter and detect fraud? Evidence from Russia’, p. 1-14.
91 O. Lazitski, ‘Media endarkenment: a comparative analysis of 2012 election coverage in the United States and Russia’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 58. No. 7, 2014, p. 899.
