Co-optation of self-determination movements in contemporary European states as a mechanism of governance of political-territorial heterogeneity

Co-optation of self-determination movements can be considered as a mechanism of governance of political-territorial heterogeneity in contemporary polities. In the article, the author classifies formats of co-optation of self-determination movements by national authorities in European states in 1990–2024. The main research task is to collect empirically observed cases of institutional co-optation of self-determination movements and classify them by the criteria of degree and sustainability. The first part of the article presents the author’s conceptualization of co-optation of self-determination movements, comparative parameters and boundaries of classification. The second part of the article presents empirically observed cases of institutional co-optation of self- determination movements in European states in 1990–2024 and their classification considering the criteria of stability and duration of co-optation. The final part is devoted to a comparative description of co-optation classes and fixation on individual examples of co-optation as a mechanism for managing political-territorial heterogeneity. Three key clusters of institutional co-optations are identified: stable government co-optations of a high degree with different parties, stable government co-optations of a medium degree with one or more close ideological partners, co-optations of a minimal degree with different parties. It has been established that co-optation as a mechanism for governance of political-territorial heterogeneity most often observed in the format of stable and long-term government co-optations with various party and ideological partners. This is due to the needs to eliminate radical demands from self-determination movements and preserve the political-territorial integrity of the state. Assumptions are made regarding possible differences in the mechanism of co-optation of self-determination movements and the traditional format of co-optation of opposition parties.

1. Armstrong D., Reuter O.R., Robertson G.B. Getting the opposition together: protest coordination in authoritarian regimes. Post-Soviet affairs. 2020, Vol. 36, N 1, P. 1–19.

2. Arriola L.R., Devaro J., Meng A. Democratic subversion: elite cooptation and opposition fragmentation. American political science review. 2021, Vol. 115, N 4, P. 1358–1372.

3. Bokobza L., Nyrup J. The rise of authoritarian multiparty governments. Democratization. 2024, Vol. 31, N 8, P. 1669–1694.

4. Carter B.L., Hassan M. Regional governance in divided societies: evidence from the Republic of Congo and Kenya. The Journal of Politics. 2021, Vol. 83, N 1, P. 40–57.

5. Everett J., Redzic E. Seeking representation: The development of hungarian minority parties in Serbia and Slovakia. The journal of political theory, Political philosophy and sociology of politics politeia. 2021, Vol. 101, N 2, P. 163–182.

6. Gandhi J., Buckles G. Opposition unity and cooptation in hybrid regimes. Proceedings of the 74th annual Midwest political science association conference. Chicago, IL. 2016, P. 1–33.

7. Gandhi J., Przeworski A. Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative political studies. 2007, Vol. 40, N 11, P. 1279–1301.

8. Gandhi J., Przeworski A. Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Economics & Politics. 2006, Vol. 18, N 1, P. 1–26.

9. Gandhi J., Lust-Okar E. Elections under authoritarianism. Annual review of political science. 2009, Vol. 12, P. 403–422.

10. Gerschewski J. The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization. 2013, Vol. 20, N 1, P. 13–38.

11. Grabevnik M.V. Electoral regionalism: Case of democratic alliance of hungarians in Romania. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Politologija. 2022, Vol. 16, N 1, P. 31–39. (In Russ.)

12. Grabevnik М.V. Political-territorial integrity of the United Kingdom: Institutional innovations and mimetic isomorphism. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Politologija. 2024, Vol. 18, N 1, P. 29–40. (In Russ.)

13. Golosov G. Co-optation in the process of dominant party system building: the case of Russia. East European politics. 2014, Vol. 30, N 2, P. 271–285.

14. Hultquist A.S., Birnir J.K., Asal V. The politics of co-optation: Ethnopolitical minority organizations and authoritarian elections in the Middle East. Ethnopolitics. 2021, Vol. 20, N 2, P. 216–243.

15. Kavasoglu B. Opposition parties and elite co-optation in electoral autocracies. Working paper of the varieties of democracy institute. 2021, Series 2021,120 p.

16. Kavasoglu B. The power of cabinet appointments in autocracies: elite cooptation and anti-regime mass uprisings. Journal of conflict resolution. 2024, Vol. 0, N 0, P. 1–26.

17. Malesky E., Schuler P. Nodding vs needling: analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American political science review. 2010, Vol. 104, N 3, P. 482–502.

18. Nyrup J., Bramwell S. Who governs? A new global dataset on members of cabinets. American political science review. 2020, Vol. 114, N 4, P. 1366–1374.

19. Panov P.V. Power-sharing and managing ethnic heterogeneity in parliamentary and presidential systems. Political science (RU). 2024, N 3, P. 43–65. (In Russ.)

20. Panov P.V., Sulimov K.A. Party of power and systemic opposition in the State Duma: toward convergence of public rhetoric. Ars administrandi. 2021, Vol. 13, N 4, P. 516–535. (In Russ.)

21. Pivovarenko A.A. Party «Istrian Democratic Assembly» and regional issues in contemporary Croatia. Comparative politics (RU). 2023, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 59–79. (In Russ.)

22. Ponomareva E.G. The former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia: from a unitary to a binational state. Political science (RU). 2010, N 1, P. 138–172. (In Russ.)

23. Reuter O. J., Robertson G. Legislatures, cooptation, and social protest in contemporary authoritarian regimes. The journal of politics. 2015, Vol. 77, N 1, P. 235–248.

24. Reuter O.J., Buckley N., Shubenkova A. Local elections in authoritarian regimes: an elite-based theory with evidence from Russian mayoral elections. Comparative political studies. 2016, Vol. 49, N 5, P. 662–697.

25. Reuter O.J. The origins of dominant parties: building authoritarian institutions in PostSoviet Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2017, 336 p.

26. Sambanis N., Germann M., Schadel A. SDM: A new data set on self-determination movements with an application to the reputational theory of conflict. Journal of conflict resolution. 2018, Vol. 62, N 3, P. 656–686.

27. Schmotz A. Vulnerability and compensation: constructing an index of co-optation in autocratic regimes. Eur polit sci. 2015, Vol. 14, P. 439–457.

28. Turovskiy R.F., Sukhova M.S. Co-optation of opposition in Russian regional parliaments: game that breaks rules. The journal of political theory, Political philosophy and sociology of politics politeia (RU). 2021, Vol. 101, N 2, P. 121–143. (In Russ.)

29. Wiebrecht F. Between elites and opposition: legislatures’ strength in authoritarian regimes. Democratization. 2021, Vol. 28, N 3, P. 1075–1094.

30. Williamson S., Magaloni B. Legislatures and policy making in authoritarian regimes. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, P. 1525–1543.

31. Wilson M.Ch., Woldense J. Contested or established? A comparison of legislative powers across regimes. Democratization. 2019, Vol. 26, N 4, P. 585–605.