Wielding the Mute Button? Social Policy as a Negative Legitimisation Tool in Russia

Social policy could serve as a legitimisation mechanism to both democratic and authoritarian regimes. In democratic regimes, social policy is deemed to support the middle class in its political participation (Deutsch, 1961), thereby legitimising the democratic polity. In authoritarian regimes, social policy is conducive to legitimising the incumbents, however it is used as a tool to keep civilians quiet. Thus, social policy is an instrument to legitimise both democratic and authoritarian regimes, nevertheless the outcome – political participation versus political acquiescence – is antipodal. Which factors then explain these seemingly contradictory functions of social policy. To bring these explanations to the fore, a hybrid regime that hovers between democratic and authoritarian characteristics can deliver new insights in the legitimisation capabilities of social policy (Levitsky & Way, 2010). The increase in social welfare spending and social discourse can be seen as a top-down strategy to counteract the sudden drop in political legitimacy after Medvedev and Putin announced to swap places (‘rokirovka’). A policy analysis of Russia’s social reforms in the wake of the contested Duma elections sheds new light on the hybrid nature of social policy, conciliating the silencing of political dissent with the promotion of active support among certain social groups such as pensioners and the military. What does it teach us about the effectiveness of social policy in legitimising a hybrid regime such as Russia? Is social policy used both to foster explicit political consent and to mute political dissent as a form of negative legitimisation (the absence of protest)? Deutsch, Karl W. (1961). Social Mobilization and Political Development. The American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514. Levitsky, Steven, & Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism : hybrid regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge university press.