Rhetorical Shifts in the Duma: From Pluralistic Dialogue to Governmental Control

• In Event: Violence and Intimidation in Post-Soviet Space

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of democratic backsliding through the lens of legislative discourse. Focusing on the Russian State Duma from 1996 to 2021, it asks in what ways do changes in the Russian Duma's discourse signal shifts in the balance of power between government and opposition, and what implications do these shifts have for democratic processes? The article aims to unravel how the transformation of pro-governmental and oppositional rhetoric across various convocations is influenced by the gradual erosion of democratic norms within a parliamentary setting. Employing a methodical, text-as-data approach incorporating support vector machine categorization and position-scaling, this study traces the evolving political narratives in the Duma, revealing the mechanisms underpinning the decline in political pluralism and the ascendancy of a dominant pro-governmental voice. Initially characterized by vibrant oppositional engagement, the Duma’s legislative environment undergoes a significant transition, marked by an increasing suppression of opposition voices and a corresponding rise in pro-government rhetoric. This shift, emblematic of democratic backsliding, is meticulously dissected through the study of key policy debates, including economics, politics, and social policy. The research contrasts these areas with sectors where legislative influence is traditionally weaker, such as defense and foreign policy, to provide a holistic view of how legislators engage with policy domains under backsliding conditions. The article contextualizes these findings within the broader scholarly discourse on legislative behaviour in authoritarian regimes, filling a gap in the literature by focusing on floor debates as a comparative measure of oppositional politics. By closely examining the subtleties of political rhetoric and strategy within the Duma, the article highlights the importance of legislative debates as instruments for narrative control and the importance of the regime’s manoeuvring regarding floor time as key for guiding pro-governmental narratives. This goes beyond conventional metrics like roll-call votes and electoral outcomes in analysing regime support. Therefore, the findings from this research not only illuminate the intricacies of the Russian case but also offer broader implications for understanding democratic backsliding in other contexts. The study underscores the significance of legislative discourse as a barometer of democratic health, providing a valuable framework for assessing the resilience or vulnerability of democracies worldwide. Through this lens, the article contributes to a deeper, more nuanced comprehension of the processes and consequences of democratic backsliding, highlighting its profound impact on the fabric of political discourse and practice.

Author

• Nicholas James, Oxford University