Between control and discipline: the political nature of the changes in the state Duma's regulations during the VII–VIII convocations

The article defines the political nature of the processes of changing the parliamentary procedure for making legislative decisions in the context of modern trends in institution-building. Using the example of amendments to the Regulations of the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the VII–VIII convocations, the peculiarities of using the procedure as a tool for transforming the political statuses of participants in the legislative process, expressed in strengthening the discipline of deputies, expanding the possibilities of monitoring their activities by factions and the leadership of the Chamber, increasing the powers of the Chairman and the Council of the Duma, are studied. As a result, the leadership of the lower house strengthened control not only over «ordinary» deputies, but also over extra-parliamentary structures (within the framework of parliamentary control) and the legislative process as a whole. Separately, the growth of the political weight of the commissions and their chairmen in the VIII convocation is noted.
The article notes the trends of changing the logic of institutional transformations in Russia, characterized by the desire of individual political actors not so much to influence the results of the legislative process as to control the internal processes of parliamentary activity, building a kind of «intra-parliamentary vertical of power». Special attention in the study is paid to the relationship between formal procedures and informal practices: depending on the «type» of parliamentary activity and the interests of participants in the process, some established practices may acquire the status of a formally fixed rule, while others may be excluded from political practice. The definition of political implications in changing the procedure of work of legislative authorities offers researchers a new look at the trends of institutional transformations and institution-building in modern Russia.

1. Alekseev D.V. Possibilities of using political technologies in the legislative process (on the example of the State Duma of the 7 th convocation). Political science (RU). 2023, N 1, P. 185–205. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.08 (In Russ.)

2. Busygina I.M., Filippov M.G. Political modernization of the state in Russia: necessity, directions, costs, risks. Moscow: Liberal Mission Foundation. 2012, 224 p. (In Russ.)

3. Chaisty P. Party cohesion and policy-making in Russia. Party Politics. 2005, Vol. 11, N 3, P. 299–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805051783

4. Chaisty P. Presidential dynamics and legislative velocity in Russia, 1994–2007. East European politics. 2014, Vol. 30, N 4, P. 588–601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2014.964393

5. Chaisty P., Whitefield S. Building voting coalitions in electoral authoritarian regimes: a case study of the 2020 constitutional reform in Russia. Post-soviet affairs. 2023, Vol. 39, N 4, P. 273–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586x.2023.2172945

6. Cox G.W. Organization of democratic legislatures. In: Weingast B.R., Wittman D.A. (eds). The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2006, P. 141–161.

7. De Jong M., Lalenis K., Mammadouth V. (eds). The theory and practice of institutional transplantation: Experiences with the transfer of policy institutions. Dordrecht: Kluver academic publishers, 2012, 313 p.

8. Fraccaroli N., Giovannini A., Jamet J.F., Persson E. Does the European Central Bank speak differently when in parliament? The Journal of Legislative Studies. 2022, Vol. 28, N 3, P. 421–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2022.2107809

9. Guy Peters B. Bureaucracy for democracy: administration in support of legislatures. The journal of legislative studies. 2021, Vol. 27, N 4, P. 577–594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2021.1961411

10. Kayser M.A., Rehmert J. Coalition prospects and policy change: an application to the environment. Legislative studies quarterly. 2021, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 219–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12273

11. Meleshkina E.Y. Formation of new states in Eastern Europe. Moscow: INION RAS, 2012, 251 p. (In Russ.)

12. Melville A.Y. Democratic transits, transitological theories and post-communist Russia. In: Larsen S.U. (ed.) Political Science in Russia: intellectual search and reality: A Textbook. Moscow: MONF; Publishing Center for Scientific and Educational Programs, LLC, 2000, P. 337–368. (In Russ.)

13. Mickler T.A. What happens after assignments? The room for manoeuvre of committee members in the Bundestag and the Tweede Kamer. Parliamentary affairs. 2019, Vol. 72, N 2, P. 445–463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx080

14. Muller W.C., Sieberer U. Procedure and rules in legislatures. In: Martin S., Saalfeld T., Strøm K.W. (eds). The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014, P. 311–321.

15. Noble B. Authoritarian amendments: Legislative institutions as intraexecutive constraints in post-Soviet Russia. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, P. 1417–1454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018797941

16. North D. Institutions, institutional changes and the functioning of the economy. Moscow: Foundation of the economic book «Beginnings», 1997, 190 p. (In Russ.)

17. Norton P. Playing by the rules: the constraining hand of parliamentary procedure. The journal of legislative studies. 2001, Vol. 7, N 3, P. 13–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/714003882

18. Olson D.M. Conclusion: Cohesion and discipline revisited: contingent unity in the parliamentary party group. The journal of legislative studies. 2003, Vol. 9, N 4, P. 164–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000306326

19. Ozbudun E. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1970, 85 p.

20. Patty J.W., Turner I.R. Ex post review and expert policy making: when does oversight reduce accountability? The journal of politics. 2021, Vol. 83, N 1, P. 23–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/708913

21. Pedrazzani A. Wasting or saving time? How government and opposition parties use time during legislative debates. Evidence from the Italian case. The journal of legislative studies. 2017, Vol. 23, N 3, P. 439–464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2017.1361206

22. Pomiguev I.A. Subject field of legislative studies in political science. Political science (RU). 2023, N 1, P. 16–41. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.01 (In Russ.)

23. Pomiguev I.A. The council of the State Duma: real veto player or a technical executive? Polis. Political studies. 2016, N 2, P. 171–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.02.12 (In Russ.)

24. Pomiguev I.A., Alekseev D.V. Resetting bills: discontinuity as a political technology for blocking policy decision. Polis. Political studies. 2021, N 4, P. 176–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13 (In Russ.)

25. Pomiguev I.A., Zaripov N.A. The influence of the Council of Legislators on the legislative activity of regional parliaments. RUDN journal of political science. 2022, Vol. 24, N 4, P. 619–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2022-24-4-619-633 (In Russ.)

26. Schwartz T. Parliamentary procedure: principal forms and political effects. Public choice. 2008, Vol. 136, N 3–4, P. 353–377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9300-3

27. Shaw M. Parliamentary committees: A global perspective. The Journal of legislative studies. 1998, Vol. 4, N 1, P. 225–251.

28. Tilly C. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007, 234 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804922