Thèses sur le sujet « Federal government – Russia (Federation) »

In Russia federalism and the design of federal institutions have been greatly debated topics ever since the beginning of the 1990s. When the newly elected Russian president Vladimir Putin introduced a number of federal reforms in May 2000 it represented the culmination of a debate on federalism that had been triggered by the political and economic crisis of 1998. In many ways these reforms entailed a different perspective on federalism, or in the terminology of this thesis a new “federal paradigm”, from the one that had dominated most of the Yeltsin era. At the same time the relations between federal and regional authorities, often referred to as intergovernmental relations, appeared to become less confrontational and fragmented than before. This work examines this latest stage in the Russian state-building process.

In particular two elements are scrutinized. The first is the shift of federal paradigms that the federal reforms reflected. Combining organisation theory and historical institutionalism it is argued that the origins of federal paradigm shifts often can be traced to the federal system itself. In Russia the failure of the federal system manifested through the political and economic crisis of 1998 changed many governmental actors’ views on federalism. However, it was not until Putin became president that the new federal paradigm could consolidate.

The second element concerns the connections between the new federal paradigm and the mode of intergovernmental relations. This work presents the argument that the way in which federalism is interpreted and conceptualised by governmental actors is important for the variation of intergovernmental relations across and within federal systems. Deriving from federal theory and some comparisons with other federal systems it is concluded that the federal paradigm that Putin represented in his first presidential term was on the whole more conducive for coordinate intergovernmental relations, at least in the short term.

Les données, recueillies au cours de huit mois et demi de recherche de terrain en Russie, sont essentiellement qualitatives. Une approche organisationnelle et fonctionnelle de l’étude des partis est utilisée afin de comprendre le rôle de ces trois formations dans le système politique russe.

La thèse s’attache à tester trois hypothèses :les partis parlementaires d’opposition remplissent certaines fonctions dans le système politique qui leur assurent le soutien d’électeurs et d’adhérents ;les organisations partisanes du LDPR, du KPRF et de Russie juste sont centralisées de manière à limiter la marge de manœuvre des branches locales et permettre un contrôle étroit de l’appareil central ;ces trois partis transforment au sein des institutions parlementaires le soutien des électeurs en soutien pour le régime.

Tout d’abord, il apparaît que le KPRF, le LDPR et Russie juste remplissent d’autres fonctions dans le système politique que celle de légitimation/stabilisation (Lavau, 1969). Ces fonctions sont multiples. Les activités électorales indiquent que ces trois partis servent, d’une part, de plateforme d’accès aux organes du pouvoir pour les entrepreneurs, d’autre part, la fonction d’expression est assurée en ce que les partis expriment des problèmes, proposent une alternative, et disqualifient certaines pratiques. Pendant les élections, et au sein du parlement régional, les partis assurent dans une certaine mesure la fonction d’organisation de l’opposition. Enfin, le KPRF, le LDPR et Russie juste remplissent, de différentes façons, la fonction d’assistance à la société.

Ensuite, la thèse a vérifié que les trois partis ont une structure interne centralisée à Moscou, tout en mettant en évidence l’interdépendance qui existe entre le siège fédéral et les branches régionales dans chaque parti. Une marge de manœuvre, différente selon les trois formations, existe donc au niveau des branches locales.

Enfin, l’exemple de Tomsk montre qu’une loyauté formelle envers le régime et une opposition réelle sont possibles. Cela implique des ambiguïtés, notamment concernant l’activité des députés de ces partis au sein des parlements locaux./The PhD thesis starts with this paradox: in the 2000s, the Russian party system is dominated by United Russia called the party of power. Nevertheless, this system also allows the existence of parties that claim to be the opposition, while being loyal to the political regime and its leaders. How do these parties resolve this paradox?

The doctoral dissertation in political science seeks to understand the role of parliamentary opposition parties in Russia between 2005 and 2010. It is based on the study of regional branches of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and Just Russia (SR) in Tomsk, Western Siberia. The qualitative data were collected during eight and a half months of field research in Russia. An organizational and functional approach to the study of political parties is used to understand their role in the Russian political system.

The thesis tests three hypotheses: first, the opposition parliamentary parties perform certain functions in the political system that gives them the support of voters and members. Second, the party organizations of the LDPR, the KPRF and Just Russia are centralized to limit the flexibility of local branches and allow tight control of the central apparatus. Third, we examine if these parties transform the support of voters into support for the regime in the parliamentary institutions at the local level.

The results show three elements. First, it shows that the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia perform several functions in the political system. On the one hand, they are platforms for businessmen to access to the organs of power; on the other hand, they express problems, offer an alternative, and disqualify some practices. During elections, and within the regional parliament, parliamentary opposition parties perform to a certain extent the function of organizing opposition. Moreover, the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia support citizens in various ways.

Then, the dissertation verifies that the three parties have a centralized internal structure. But it also highlights the interdependence between federal headquarters and regional branches within each party.

Finally, the case of Tomsk shows that formal loyalty to the regime, and a real opposition at the same time, is possible as far as the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia are concerned.
Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

La diplomatie énergétique russe s’affirme pendant les années 2003-2004, comme une démarche pragmatique, un moyen opportuniste de rencontrer un projet politique en utilisant un des rares leviers dont dispose ce pays appauvri et affaibli – sa puissance énergétique qu’il s’agit de transformer un outil de puissance politique, raison pour laquelle la politique étrangère russe va être mise au service de ce projet. Le travail fait donc référence aux spécificités internes de la Russie et au contexte international afin d’identifier les faiblesses et les forces de cette diplomatie spécifique.

Russian energy diplomacy, with which this work is uniquely concerned, differs from the classic industrial policies adopted by states in order to re-launch their economies or certain industrial sectors. It has consisted of putting Russia’s natural resources and particularly its energy potential (as a producer, a consumer, and a transit country) to the practical purpose of restoring its status as a great power. For Russia, the return to power would permit the country to emerge from its period of transition and become a leading actor in the world reshaped by the ending of the cold war. It is a matter of making its voice heard, as an equal partner in international decisions and the formulation of the new political norms necessitated by post-cold war upheaval.

In 2002-2004 Russia developed this energy diplomacy as a pragmatic and opportunistic means of attaining a political objective with one of the few levers at the disposal of an impoverished and enfeebled country – that is to say, its energy potential, which it turned into a political tool. To this effect, Russian foreign policy has been made to serve the same project. Consequently this work deals with internal specificities and the international energy context, in order to probe both the weakness and the strength of this particular form of diplomacy.
Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished