Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

180 Petr PanovFor Volgograd Oblast I put the results of the second cycle elections down as the third cycle because thelatter was virtually non-existent (the region had abandoned the rotation principle, and after themandate of half the deputies had expired their seats remained vacant until the fourth cycle elections).The Sverdlovsk Oblast legislature consists of two houses the Duma (28 deputies) and the House ofRepresentatives (21). Half the deputies in the lower house (the Duma) stand for re-election everytwo years according to the proportional system, so there have been seven elections. I regarded the1996 and 1998 elections (aggregately) as the second cycle; the 2000 and 2002 elections as the thirdcycle and, the 2004 and 2006 election as the forth cycle. For the fourth cycle the ENP was calculatedon the basis of the 2004 election. Prior to 2000 the upper house was biannually elected on thebasis of a pluralist system, and after 2000 – every four years. I regarded the 1998 election results asthe second cycle and the 2000 results as third.In Kemerovo Oblast regional legislature the deputies’ term in office was three years, so by 2003 therehad been four, not three elections. I regarded the 1999 elections as the second cycle and the 2003 asthe third.Nine regions (Ulyanovsk Oblast, Adygeya, Ingushetiya, Kabardino-Balkariya, Kalmykiya, Karachaevo-Cherkessiya,Mordoviya, Tatarstan, Taimyr AO) had one election fewer than the otherregions because unlike other federal subjects the first regional legislature there served full (4–5years) terms, not shortened terms. Therefore, the results of the first elections in those regions wereput down as second cycle, and the second elections – as third.Five regions (Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Komi Republic, North Osetiya-Alaniya and Udmurtiya) dueto a number of reasons had a ‘shifted cycle’, so second cycle elections took place in 1999 (not in1996–8) and third cycle elections were carried out in 2003 (not in 2000–2).Notes1 See, for example, R. Moser, Unexpected Outcomes: Electoral Systems, PoliticalParties, and Representation in Russia, Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press,2001.2 J. Buchanan and G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michigan Press, 1962.3 A. Bentley, The Process of Government, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1967.4 R. Dahl, Who Governs?, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961.5 R. Goodin, ‘Institutionalizing the public interests: the defense of deadlock andbeyond’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 1996, pp. 331–43.6 A. Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance inThirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.7 R. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.8 G. Doron and I. Sened, Political Bargaining: Theory, Practice and Process,London: Sage Publications, 2001, pp. 14–15.9 J. Habermas, The Inclusion of Other: Studies of Political Theory, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1998.10 H. Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1958.11 R. Sennett, The Fall of Public Man, New York: Knopf, 1976; R. Putnam, BowlingAlone, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.12 G. Delanty, Community, London, Routledge, 2003, p. 12.13 The Federalist, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.14 M. Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the ModernState, London: Methuen, 1954; K. Janda, Political Parties: A Cross-NationalSurvey, New York: Free Press, 1988.15 J. Buchanan and G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michigan Press, 1962.16 K. Shepsle and B. Weingast (eds), Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995.