Autonomy, Representation, Participation: the Phenomenon of People’s Congresses in Russia

Abstract

Alexandr Osipov — Doctorate Student, Institute of Sociology Russian Academy of Sciences. Address: Bldg. 5, 24/35, Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation. Email: aosipov1@gmail.com

This paper addresses the phenomenon of permanent or regularly convened public forums (or ‘people’s congresses’, PCs hereafter) which are designed to represent certain ethnic groups and are formed through open-accessed popular vote. PCs can be associated with the issues of non-territorial autonomy, ‘participation’ and representation. This paper seeks to explain the gap between the formal significance and legitimacy of the ‘congresses’, on the one hand, and the negligible role they play in practice, on the other.

In retrospect, over the last 20 years one can list 13 stable and regularly functioning PCs in Russia. These ‘congresses’ are mainly represented by titular ethnicities of the republics within the Russian Federation. Most often, congresses are nominally formed through two-staged elections in which people belonging to a particular ethnicity, or those sympathetic to the movement, vote.

A congress as a public meeting provides mass discussion on strategic issues, forms a permanent coordinating structure such as an executive committee and establishes a kind of ‘nationwide’ public movement. The standing central organs of the congresses and the regional branches have acted mainly as lobbyists, prompting authorities to specific actions (if they were not controlled directly by the authorities), or have acted as support groups or as additional propaganda tools of the official authorities. Permanent executive organs of the movements and the regional branches often run cultural and educational projects and are frequently granted public funding.

The PCs have proven to be viable and durable organizations. They have secured flexibility in their establishment and functioning; provided for mass participation in public discussions and voting; avoided most complexities related to setting qualifications and the selection of eligibility criteria for the participants; and become a bridge between ethnic activists and public authorities.

At the same time, the real ‘congresses’ have not gained a significant visibility at the national level and remain known only to regional authorities, a handful of academics and to the direct participants. There is also a gap between their formal success in creating mechanisms of representation and participation, and their questionable substantive effectiveness. This disjuncture can be explained through the difference between symbolic and instrumental politics. The PCs must be legitimate in the eyes of their constituencies and the official authorities regardless of how they convene and function, because they fully met certain ideological expectations.