Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Hybrid leaders seek job security. To stay in power, it may be intuitive that they respond to dissent with a heavy hand. However, these leaders are subject to accountability and concerned with legitimacy and therefore must consider the optics of their decisions. By co-opting a previously independent avenue of communication and its leadership, the state eliminates challengers, curates its public image through trusted social leaders, and reinforces control without resorting to repressive methods that may backfire. Based on a decade of fieldwork, data collection, and expert interviews, I evidence the co-optation of dissent via thematic, spatial, and material shifts in political public art, crafted between the 2012 and 2018 Russian presidential elections. As it consolidated power during this time, the Putin administration co-opted critical graffiti artists and flooded out those unwilling to cooperate, replacing subversive and anonymous anti-regime graffiti with Kremlin-curated murals, particularly in the city center.

Keywords

dissent management protest street art Russia Putin

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acemoglu

Robinson

J. A.

(2006). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

Baldini

(2016). Street art: A reply to Riggle. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 74, 187-191.

Bennett

Checkel

(Eds.). (2014). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brownlee

(2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bunce

(1999). Subversive institutions: The design and the destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bushnell

J. S.

(1990). Moscow Graffiti. Language and Subculture. Boston: Unwin and Hyman.

Cheeseman

(2018). How to rig an election. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chen

Pan

(2016). Sources of authoritarian responsiveness: A field experiment in China. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 383-400.

Deibert

(2019). The road to digital unfreedom: Three painful truths about social media. Journal of Democracy, 30, 25-39.

10.

Diamond

(2002). Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, 2, 21-35.

11.

Fish

M. S.

(2005). Democracy derailed in Russia: The failure of open politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Flintoff

(2015, December 23). Russia marks Crimea annexation with a banknote rapidly losing value. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/23/460831232/russia-marks-crimea-annexation-with-a-banknote-rapidly-losing-value

13.

Frye

Borisova

(2019). Elections, protest, and trust in government: A natural experiment from Russia. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 820-832.

14.

(2018). Mobilizing without the masses: Control and contention in China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Gamson

W. A.

(1990). The strategy of social protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

16.

Gandhi

(2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Gel’man

(2015). Calculus of dissent: How the Kremlin is countering its rivals. Russian Analytical Digest, 166, 2-4.

18.

Gerschewski

(2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20, 13-38.

19.

Gunitsky

(2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 42-54.

20.

Guriev

S. M.

Treisman

(2015). How modern dictators survive: An informational theory of the new authoritarianism (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2602118). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w21136

21.

Habermas

(1964). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. New German Critique, 3, 49-55.

22.

Habermas

(2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411-426.

23.

Han

(2015). Manufacturing Consent in Cyberspace: China’s “Fifty-Cent Army. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 44(2),105-134.

24.

Hyde

(2015). The problem of insincere compliance in international relations: Norms, policy diffusion and international expectations (working paper).

25.

Johnston

(2011). States and social movements. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

26.

King

Pan

Roberts

(2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107, 326-343.

27.

Koesel

K. J.

(2014). Religion and authoritarianism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Krylova

(1999). “Saying Lenin and meaning party”: Subversion and laughter in late Soviet society. In Baker

A. M.

(Ed.), Consuming Russia popular culture, sex, and society since Gorbachev. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

29.

Lefebvre

(1970). The urban revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

30.

Lerner

(2013). Artful dodgers: Urban interventionists Partizaning are taking back the streets. London, England: The Calvert Journal.

31.

Lerner

(2014a). Flickering flame: Remembering street art pioneer Pasha 183. London, England: The Calvert Journal.

32.

Lerner

(2014b). Off the wall: Misha Most’s street art comes to London. London, England: The Calvert Journal.

33.

Levitsky

Way

L. A.

(2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13, 51-65.

34.

Lussier

D. N.

(2016). Constraining elites in Russia and Indonesia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Malesky

Schuler

(2010). Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review, 104, 482-502.

36.

McFaul

(2018). From cold war to hot peace: An American ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

37.

Pepinsky

(2014). The institutional turn in comparative authoritarianism. British Journal of Political Science, 44, 631-653.

38.

Ponosov

(2008). Objects III: Russian street art. Moscow, Russia: Self-Published.

39.

Ponosov

(2018). Russian urban art history and conflicts. Moscow, Russia: Self-Published.

40.

Putin

(2012). Decree number 1710. Retrieved from https://rvio.histrf.ru/officially/ukaz-1710

41.

Riggle

N. A.

(2010). Street art: The transfiguration of the commonplaces. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 68, 243-257.

42.

Robertson

(2010). The politics of protest in hybrid regimes: Managing dissent in post-communist Russia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Sanovich

Stukal

Tucker

J. A.

(2018). Turning the virtual tables: Government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia. Comparative Politics, 50, 435-482.

44.

Schatz

(2009). The soft authoritarian tool kit: Agenda-setting power in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Comparative Politics, 41, 203-222.

45.

Schedler

(2002). Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13, 36-50.

46.

Schmotz

(2015). Vulnerability and compensation: Constructing an index of co-optation in autocratic regimes. European Political Science, 14, 439-457.

47.

Scott

J. C.

(1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

48.

Scott

(1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press.

49.

Shen-Bayh

(2018). Strategies of repression: Judicial and extrajudicial methods of autocratic survival. World Politics, 70, 321-357.

50.

Simpser

(2013). Why governments and parties manipulate elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Sukhodolsky

(2013, April 3). Street art and art activism beyond pussy riot. Russia Beyond. Retrieved from https://www.rbth.com/arts/2013/04/03/street_art_and_art_activism_beyond_pussy_riot_24611.html

52.

Teets

J. C.

(2014). Civil society under authoritarianism: The China model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Tilly

(1978). From mobilization to revolution. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

54.

Waterlow

(2018). It’s only a joke, comrade! Humour, trust and everyday life under Stalin (1928-1941). Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent.

55.

Way

(2015). Pluralism by default: Weak autocrats and the rise of competitive politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

56.

Wedeen

(2009). Ambiguities of domination (2015th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

57.

Wintrobe

(1998). The political economy of dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Wong

(2006). Healthy democracies: Welfare politics in Taiwan and South Korea. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

59.

Wood

(2019, February 22). In Central Asia, politics by way of social media. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com///in-central-asia-politics-by-way-of-social-media/201902

60.

Zimberg

(2012). The spray can is mightier than the sword: Street art as a medium for political discourse in the Post-Soviet region (Master’s thesis). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB

The Co-optation of Dissent in Hybrid States: Post-Soviet Graffiti in Moscow

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material