| Summary: | Why do legislators continue to engage in parliamentary floor activities under authoritarian regimes when policy decisions and voting outcomes are often predetermined before reaching the debate stage? This dissertation investigates the evolution of the Russian State Duma from a semi democratic institution to a hegemonic electoral authoritarian regime by examining how legislative debates have transformed from relatively open discussions into orchestrated tools of regime control, illustrating the government’s strategic manipulation of parliamentary structures to reinforce authoritarian consolidation. Utilising a novel dataset from the Duma’s public records and detailed legislator-level data, this research provides both macro and micro perspectives on the transformation of legislative speech under such conditions and reveals systematic manipulations of parliamentary structures and strategic distributions of debate opportunities, underscoring their role in legitimising the regime. The core theoretical contribution lies in developing a framework for analysing legislative speech in electoral authoritarian regimes, with a particular focus on Russia. This framework highlights the impact of institutional configurations, such as electoral system manipulations, agenda setting controls, and procedural changes in the Duma, which collectively shape legislative behaviour, eventually curtailing legislators’ substantive impact while allowing regulated avenues for political expression and pro-regime messaging. Moreover, the dissertation uncovers a delicate balancing act where legislators must align with the dominant party’s prerogatives while maintaining space for their own party’s narratives. The research further explores the broader role of the party system in these regimes, showing how the dominant party’s control over legislative processes, including speech opportunities, reflects broader political dynamics in which opposition parties, though restricted, play a role in simulating political engagement and, therefore, contribute to institutional legitimacy.
|
|---|