Fine-grained Understanding of Domestic Politics: From Regimes to Government and Opposition Practices

This paper addresses the growing complexity of domestic political systems amid rising authoritarianism, where both governments and opposition engage in diverse practices that blur traditional regime classifications. Instead of expecting particular behaviour from actors based on their titles, such as “institutional opposition”, “democratic government”, or “authoritarian regime”, it is crucial to trace emerging autocratic trends and opposition involvement at a fine-grained analytical level. Unlike the conventional literature, which focuses solely on ruling elites, this research examines both government and opposition as equally significant subjects in the process of transformation. Shifting the focus from regimes to practices, this study proposes a framework for understanding domestic political systems as fields of practice in which government and opposition interact. In these fields, governments perform authoritarian practices that sabotage accountability or democratic ones that uphold it, opposition practices counter these. Government and opposition practices mutually shape each other and the system. This study examines government and opposition practices performed from 2010 to 2025 in two post-Soviet states, Russia and Belarus, which are universally classified as consolidated autocracies. The analysis draws on texts, speeches, and 75 semi-structured interviews conducted with the Russian and Belarusian activists and experts. Russia and Belarus constitute representative case studies, as they took different paths to similar political outcomes—generally repressive governments with suppressed opposition. These contexts thus offer well-documented menus of diverse government practices, most notably authoritarian ones, and similarly rich yet underexplored opposition practices. Drawing on the above research, this paper reveals overlooked dynamics between the government and opposition and offers a potentially universal tool for analysing political systems beyond regime classifications and actor-based categories. The fine-grained approach to studying domestic political systems also uncovers fundamental principles of political practice-making and identifies the involved actors through their actual doings rather than prescriptive classifications. This makes evaluation of political regimes significantly more dynamic: paying attention to isolated authoritarian practices enables researchers to spot concerning trends quickly, and considering opposition practices ensures a contextual assessment of challenges to the status quo. For researchers, policymakers, and donors, it shall serve as a foundation for evaluating existing gaps and emerging requirements for democratic defence. Indeed, at the time of a democratic backslide, democracy requires not mere cherishing and safeguarding, but active promotion to ensure its long-term sustainability.