The deputies voting strategies: what open data says about the work of the State Duma
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.13
Abstract
The article is devoted to revealing features of the Russian State Duma’s functioning from the perspective of deputies’ behavior strategies. It explores Open Data sources to study the results of individual votes for each of the issues being discussed in the State Duma between 2018 and 2022.
The realization of an ‘Open Data’ initiative is a part of a state information policy allowing researchers to analyze the functioning of a state apparatus substantially. Its implementation in Russia took place in 2014–2016, while afterward attention to the topic of information transparency decreased and access to the number of already published datasets was limited.
Nevertheless, despite overall paradigm shifts, the transfer toward transparent data partly continues. Open Data of the State Duma allows us to analyze how the lower chamber of a parliament works, how each deputy votes, and what factors (for instance, the COVID pandemic, the Special Military Operation, and external sanctions) affect the decision-making process.
The main goal of the research is to explain why parliamentarians intentionally avoid voting while being at the same time present on a plenary session. According to an initial hypothesis, deputies as rational actors apply it as an individual strategy – abstention presents a ‘grey zone' in which they can avoid external accusations of disloyalty or violation of party rules. This assumption is supported by the results of voting themselves alongside observations regarding indirect aspects of the State Duma’s functioning.
The second significant goal of this study is to demonstrate Open State Data as a resource that can be successfully studied by researchers and to reveal the potential of the State Duma Open Data particularly that can be used in future research in a respective field.
References
1. Blais A. The classification of electoral systems. European journal of political research. 1988, Vol. 16, N 1, P. 99–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1988.tb00143.x
2. Chaisty P. The preponderance and effects of sectoral ties in the State Duma. Europe-Asia studies. 2013, Vol. 65, N 4, P. 717–736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.767605
3. Crewe E., Taylor-Robinson M.M., Martin S. The present of parliamentary and legislative studies. Parliamentary affairs. 2022, Vol. 75, N 4, P. 740–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsac010
4. Duverger M. Public opinion and political parties in France. American political science review. 1952, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 1069–1078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1952113
5. Ezhov D.A. Elections of deputies of the state duma of the Russian federation of the eighth convocation: trends and forecasts. Vlastʼ, 2021, N 3, P. 91–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v29i3.8145 (In Russ.)
6. Fuks N., Kabanov Y. The Impact of open government on the quality of governance: empirical analysis. In: Electronic governance and open society: challenges in Eurasia 6 th International Conference, EGOSE 2019, St. Petersburg, Russia, November 13–14, 2019. Proceedings. Cham: Springer, 2020, P. 116–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39296-3
7. Grudinin N.S. The approaches of realization effectiveness increasing of the representative function of the Russian federation state duma. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. 2013, N 10 (5), P. 118–122. (In Russ.)
8. Gandhi J., Noble B., Svolik M. Legislatures and legislative politics without democracy. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, 1359–1379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020919930
9. Hirschman A.O. Exit, voice and loyalty. Moscow: Novoe izdatelstvo, 2009, 156 p. (In Russ.)
10. Kabanov Y. Karyagin M. Romanov V. Politics of open data in Russia: regional and municipal perspectives. In: Vinod Kumar T. (eds). E-democracy for smart cities. Advances in 21 st century human settlements. Singapore: Springer, 2017, P. 461–485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4035-1_15
11. Korguniuk Yu. The party system of modern Russia: the main vector of development. Current problems of Europe. 2018, N 2, P. 202–224. (In Russ.)
12. Krol G. Legislative performance of the Russian State Duma: the role of parliament in an authoritarian regime. East European politics. 2017, Vol. 33, N 4, P. 450–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2017.1346504
13. Krol G. Parliamentary initiative in authoritarian regimes: power sharing in Eurasian legislatures. The Journal of legislative studies. 2020, Vol. 26, N 2, P. 248–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1738671
14. Kynev A.V. State Duma of the Russian Federation of the VII convocation: between “sleeping potential” and party discipline. Politeia. 2017, Vol. 87, N 4, P. 65–81. (In Russ.)
15. Lijphart A. The political consequences of electoral laws, 1945–85. The American political science review. 1990, Vol. 84, N 2, P. 481–496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1963530
16. Meyer M.M. Russian State Duma elections 2016. Vlast’, 2016, N 6, P. 29–34. (In Russ.) Nisnevich Y.A. State Duma: silent-obedient majority. Otechestvennye zapiski. 2007, N 39, 129–138. (In Russ.)
17. Petukhov V.V. Elections to the State duma of Russia on the background of the institutional crisis. Vlastʼ. 2016, N 7, P. 22–27. (In Russ.)
18. 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.)
19. 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.)
20. Pomiguev I.A., Fomin I.V., Maltsev A.M. Network approach in legislative studies: perspective methods for qualitative and quantitative analysis of parliamentary activity. Political science (RU). 2021, N 4, P. 31–59. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.04.02 (In Russ.)
21. Reuter O.J., Turovsky R. Dominant party rule and legislative leadership in authoritarian regimes. Party politics. 2014, Vol. 20, N 5, P. 663–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812448689
22. Riker W.H. The two-party system and Duverger's law: an essay on the history of political science. American political science review. 1982, Vol. 76, N 4, P. 753–766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1962968
23. Shugart M.S. Comparative executive-legislative relations. In: Rhodes R.A.W., Binder S.A., Rockman B.A. (eds). The Oxford handbook of political institutions. New York, NY: Oxford university press, 2008, P. 344–365.
24. Truex R. Authoritarian gridlock? Understanding delay in the Chinese legislative system. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, P. 1455–1492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758766
25. Wessels B., Finn R.L., Wadhwa K. et al. Open data and the knowledge society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam university press, 2017, 204 p. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5117/9789462980181
Review
Views:
109
Email this article 
Post a Comment 