Plebiscitarian Patrimonialism in Putin’s Russia

Stephen E. Hanson

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2011, vol. 636, issue 1, 32-48

Abstract: The Putin-Medvedev transition reveals the continuing inability of post-Soviet Russian leaders to arrive at any consensual notion of Russia’s national identity around which ordinary forms of legitimate domination might be constructed. In searching for an answer to the problem of leadership succession during his second term as president, Vladimir Putin tried out all three of the classical types of legitimate domination that Max Weber defined—the traditional, the rational-legal, and the charismatic—without success. In the end, the 2008 elections represented a novel combination of strategies for building state legitimacy that we might term “plebiscitarian patrimonialism†: the Russian leadership claims the right to rule as if the state were its personal property, as long as the results of this arbitrary rule are electorally ratified by “the people†as a true reflection of the national will.

Keywords: Putin; plebiscitarianism; patrimonialism; Russia; Weber; legitimacy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716211398210 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:636:y:2011:i:1:p:32-48

DOI: 10.1177/0002716211398210

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().