Search
In-Person Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Category
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Affiliate Organization
Search Tips
Sponsors
About ASEEES
Code of Conduct Policy
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
How do autocracies manage local levels of power? Russia in the pre-war times was infamously known for the exceptionally high rates of municipal heads behind bars. Autocracies, despite their centralized control, have not been immune to the subnational elective institutions. Military regimes like Pakistan and monarchies such as Saudi Arabia have had experiences with implementing local elections. In contrast, Russia stands out by resisting the global trend of curtailing local political autonomy. Our focus is on Russia during the period preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the final transformation of the Putin regime into a hegemonic dictatorship. Specifically, we delve into the phase leading up to the abolition of direct mayoral elections in Russian cities and rayons. Using a unique dataset comprising biographies of municipal heads from 2014 to 2018, we examine the impact of criminal charges on the subsequent trajectory of a municipality, its loyalty, and governance reflected primarily in electoral outcomes. We aim to assess whether the observed rates of criminal charges reflect abnormally high levels of corruption and inadequate service delivery or serve as a proxy for political repression. Furthermore, we explore the effects of the elimination of direct elections and the rise in criminal prosecutions on electoral outcomes at the local level. Our analysis considers various factors, including political alignment and loyalty, anti-corruption campaigns, state over-regulation, economic interests and conflicts, rotation, and personal trajectories. These factors not only influence the ability to govern but also impact the mobilization and delivery of votes.