(iPoster) Pseudo-Democratic Participation and Genuine Regime Support in Russia

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Religion and Politics & Politics of Communist and Former Communist Countries (Post-Soviet)
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Politics of Communist and Former Communist Countries (Post-Soviet)

Abstract

Democratic innovations designed to enhance citizen participation are not unique to democratic regimes. Authoritarian states also employ quasi-democratic participatory tools, often for instrumental purposes. Examining such deviant cases offers valuable insight into the comparative effectiveness of democratic innovations in strengthening democratic resilience, or, alternatively, authoritarian stability.

This paper investigates the impact of an online voting platform that enables citizens in Russian regions to make legally binding decisions regarding public-space renovation projects. It argues that although this instrument lacks key features of a genuine democratic innovation, it nonetheless increases regime approval. This suggests that participation can generate political returns even when its democratic quality is limited.

The study uses an original dataset of public-space renovation projects and electoral outcomes across Russian regions between 2015 and 2025. The Urban Environment Enhancement Programme (UEEP), launched in 2018 and implemented in multiple regions throughout the 2020s, provides a quasi-experimental setting to identify the effect of new projects on electoral dynamics. Using a geospatial difference-in-differences model, I show that areas benefiting from these renovation projects exhibit increased support for the incumbent governor in the subsequent regional elections. To isolate the effect of receiving a public good through a quasi-democratic instrument, as opposed to simply receiving a public good, I run an additional model that compares the impact of UEEP projects with renovation projects delivered through non-participatory programmes.

By demonstrating how participatory institutions can be repurposed to stabilise authoritarian rule, this paper contributes to comparative debates on democratic innovation, civic behaviour, and democratic backsliding. It shows that participatory governance does not inherently strengthen democracy and may, under certain institutional conditions, reinforce authoritarian resilience.

Author

• Mikhail Korneev, University of Oxford