Transformation of the concept «democracy» in the annual presidential addresses to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (2000–2018)
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.02.05
Abstract
Using the methods of the discursive-historical approach, this article analyzes the evolution of approaches to the representation of «democracy» in the presidential annual addresses to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from 2000 to 2018. The author studies the lexical choice of the speaker (the words used to represent the discursive key categories such as human rights, freedom, relations between the state and the individual ) and the frame, that is, the structure for representing democracy, organized on the basis of a certain concept (eg. freedom, a strong state, sovereignty, threats , etc.). Based on the data collected, the representation of the «democracy» in the documents analyzed and the frequency of its intersection with other topics were compared. This made it possible to establish internal contextual relations between the concept of democracy and other concepts such as civil society, human rights, freedom, etc., and thereby reveal the evolution of the representation of democracy in presidential addresses. The article shows that over a long period from 2000 to 2012 democracy was one of the key concepts used in presidential rhetoric of annual addresses, but always in close connection with the idea of originality ( samobytnost') . After 2012, «democracy» began to appear much less frequently in the president's addresses, being replaced by rhetoric of popular approval (outside democratic procedures), responsibility and unity of citizens. The author concludes that the representation of «democracy» in presidential addresses changed significantly in the period from 2012 to 2017. If in the early 2000 s the president emphasized the dialogue nature of democracy and the interaction of people and authorities, then later the meaning of democracy is narrowed and practically reduced to elective procedures, or to the legality.
About the Author
O. V. ZakharovaRussian Federation
References
1. Кубышкина Е.В. Американский политический дискурс при Дж. Буше-мл.: эволюция метафор // Полис. Политические исследования. 2012. № 1. С. 100-112. EDN: OOEZON
2. Макаренко Б.И., Мельвиль А.Ю. Как и почему "зависают" демократические транзиты? Посткоммунистические уроки // Политическая наука. 2014. № 3. С. 9-39. EDN: SQJVVT
3. Малинова О.Ю. Актуальное прошлое: символическая политика властвующей элиты и дилеммы российской идентичности. М.: Политическая энциклопедия, 2015. 207 с. EDN: UIAXZD
4. Мельвиль А.Ю. "Кризис демократии" и "зависшие" демократизации // Российская политическая наука: Идеи, концепции, методы / под общ. ред. О.В. Гаман-Голутвиной. М.: Аспект-Пресс, 2015. С. 11-30. EDN: ZAUAUP
5. Митрохина Т.Н. Политическая повестка дня для России в официальном дискурсе власти // Власть. 2012. № 5. С. 4-8. EDN: OXSZMR
6. Нисневич Ю.А., Рябов А.В. Постсоветский авторитаризм // Общественные науки и современность. 2017. № 4. С. 84-97. EDN: YZJSCL
7. Урнов М.Ю. Россия: виртуальные и реальные политические перспективы //Общественные науки и современность. 2014 а. № 4. С. 46-58. EDN: SKJAEN
8. Урнов М.Ю. Россия: виртуальные и реальные политические перспективы //Общественные науки и современность. 2014 b. № 5. С. 114-129. EDN: SWLWAB
9. Burett T. Television and presidential power in Putin's Russia. L.; N.Y.: Routledge, 2011. 320 p.
10. Cohen J. Presidential rhetoric and the public agenda // American journal of political science. 1995. Vol. 39, N 1. P. 87-107. DOI: 10.2307/2111759
11. Reisigl M., Wodak R. The Discourse-historical approach (DHA) // Method of critical discourse analysis / R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds). L.: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009. P. 87-121.
12. Wodak R., Richardson E. European fascism in talk and text Introduction // Analysing fascist discourse. European fascism in talk and text / R. Wodak, E. Richardson (eds). N.Y.; L.: Routledge, 2013. P. 3-18.