Shoring Up Autocracy: Participatory Technologies and Regime Support in Putin’s Russia

• DOI: 10.1177/0010414021989759
• Date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Hannah S. Chapman
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021989759

Comparative Political Studies

2021, Vol. 54(8) 1459 –1489

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414021989759

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

Shoring Up Autocracy:

Participatory

Technologies and Regime

Support in Putin’s Russia

Hannah S. Chapman1

Abstract

How do autocrats build support? This study argues that autocrats create and

maintain participatory technologies—elite-mass communication strategies

that promote two-way interaction between citizens and leaders—to foster

support. Participatory technologies provide citizens with the opportunity

to have a limited voice in otherwise closed political systems. I test this

theory through a series of two nationally-representative survey experiments

in Russia. Results suggest that awareness of participatory technologies

increases approval of President Putin and improves perceptions that there

are opportunities for voice in politics. This finding departs from previous

research that suggests public opinion is influenced primarily by participation.

Furthermore, I demonstrate that these effects can be directly attributed to

the communicative format of these strategies, not to issue resolution or

leadership effects. Finally, I demonstrate that effects are dependent upon

individuals’ political sophistication and political priors, contributing to political

polarization and opening up the potential for backlash against the regime.

Keywords

elections, public opinion, and voting behavior, non-democratic regimes,

Russia/Former Soviet Union

1Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Hannah S. Chapman, Karen and Adeed Dawisha Assistant Professor of Political Science,

Miami University, 317 Harrison Hall, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Email: chapmah@miamioh.edu

989759CPSXXX10.1177/0010414021989759Comparative Political StudiesChapman

research-article2021

1460 Comparative Political Studies 54(8)

Introduction

Authoritarian regimes go to great lengths to dominate domestic information

spaces for the purpose of controlling the political narrative and discourag-

ing dissent. Scholarship on the internet and social media, for example, has

examined the ways in which autocrats repress, coopt, censor, and regulate

independent political communication to prevent these tools from being

used against the regime (Howard et al., 2011; King et al., 2013; Morozov,

2012; Roberts, 2018; Sanovich et al., 2018; Tucker et al., 2017). However,

extensive censorship and repression can prove detrimental to regimes:

Limiting political pluralism and room for dissent can negatively impact

regime approval and reduce information about the mood of society. How

then can autocrats balance the needs for support and information on one

hand and control on the other?

Scholars have argued that non-democratic regimes utilize a variety of

quasi-democratic institutions in order to maintain this balance. These include

formal institutions such as legislatures, political parties, and elections

(Blaydes, 2010; Boix & Svolik, 2007; Gandhi, 2009; Gandhi & Przeworski,

2006, 2007; He & Warren, 2011; Lust-Okar, 2006; Magaloni, 2006; Malesky

& Schuler, 2010; Nathan, 2003). More recently, scholars have posited that

non-electoral forms of participation, including elite-mass communication

strategies that specifically promote two-way communication between ordi-

nary citizens and their leaders—what I call participatory technologies—can

serve similar purposes (e.g., Hill & Gaddy, 2013; Pisano, 2014; Wengle &

Evans, 2018). However, we have relatively little knowledge about the extent

to which these opportunities actually impact public opinion and the mecha-

nisms by which they do so (for an exception, see Truex, 2017). This study

builds upon existing claims and uses unique experimental evidence to estab-

lish the causal link between participatory technologies and political attitudes

in a particular non-democratic context. This article asks: Does awareness of,

rather than participation in, these strategies influence autocratic approval and

political efficacy? Do these strategies have a uniform impact across all indi-

viduals or do certain characteristics condition their effect on attitudes?

Participatory technologies promote dialog between authorities and the

masses but limit full participation and contestation in political life. Instead,

participatory technologies act as a means for authorities to balance these

democratic and authoritarian elements to create unique spaces for political

exchange that are closely monitored and controlled by the state yet still

allow individuals a managed voice in the political process and a means to

address their concerns. Like other nominally-democratic practices, partici-

patory technologies in non-democracies combine “democratic rules with