Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

The problem of effective representation 165half the deputies elected in single-member constituencies belong to a party.Party membership is on the rise even in those regions where elections havenot yet taken place (the fourth cycle is not completed).More importantly, party factions are becoming the main ‘unit of representation’.It is parties, not non-party ‘deputy groups’, that are starting tocoordinate the activity of the deputies. In particular, this is expressed inpublic statements on political positions and preferences aired by the factionson behalf of their members. In these circumstances casting votes at electionsbecomes more party-oriented than before. In conclusion, it can now be statedthat the policies of parties are now an important factor in regional politics.It is not unexpected, then, that it is United Russia that has become themost successful party in the regions – it secured over half the seats in fortysubjects of the Federation. Even although its deputies make up less than athird of the assemblies in fifteen regions, the ‘party in power’ has been ableto exercise a major influence through the formation of large legislativefactions in these assemblies (with the exception of Volgograd Oblast andKoryak Autonomous Okrug).Nevertheless, the Centre’s efforts to make United Russia forge strong rootsin the regions has inevitably made other political parties more active. Thereare, however, significant cross-regional differences. The development level ofvarious parties can be measured with an Effective Number of Parties inParliament Index (ENP). 37 The index values for the fourth cycle are given inTable 7.3. 38The table shows that approximately one quarter of the regions demonstratea relative high level of party competition (ENP > 3). There is nothingunexpected in the fact that from the viewpoint of elite configuration almostall these regions belong to the ‘elites settlement’ or ‘fragmented elite’ type.Political figures have an especially strong incentive to invest resources inregional branches of various parties (not only in United Russia) in thoseregions where there is more than one influential political actor. As a rule, themore diversified the political resources in a region, the more competitive thepolitical process and the better developed the regional branches of variouspolitical parties.At the same time there is a group of twelve regions where party competitionis almost non-existent (ENP < 1.5). Among them there are both economicallypoor and rich regions, ‘oblasts’ and ‘ethnic republics’ and‘national autonomies’ (autonomous okrugs/oblast). This shows that the levelof development of political parties at the regional level can be explainedneither by the level of socio-economic development nor by the status of thesubject of the Federation. The key determining factor is the configuration ofthe regional elite. Most regions in this group are ‘autocracies’ (either ‘harsh’or ‘soft’). This suggests that an active party formation promotes, rather thanrestricts, the diversification of regional politics. Regions displaying authoritariantendencies are becoming even more authoritarian, while competitiveregions are turning even more competitive.