Search

This document is a book review discussing three books on the topic of authoritarianism. The books analyze different aspects of authoritarian regimes and their longevity. The authors have diverse perspectives and sometimes contradict each other. The books explore topics such as the strategies used by autocrats to maintain power, the role of violence in authoritarian durability, and the impact of manipulative techniques on regime survival. The article raises questions about the future of authoritarianism, the potential for new forms of violent dictatorships, and the influence of major crises on public demand for strongmen. Overall, these books contribute to the study of authoritarian politics and provide valuable insights into the challenges and dynamics of autocratic regimes. [Extracted from the article]

According to elite and mass surveys, the late-Soviet sociopolitical and economic order was largely perceived as the only viable alternative to domestic political and economic status quo in Russia before 2022. Political elites invested significant efforts and funds into deliberative promotion of a complex of ideational legacies through different tools (including cinematography). This complex, labeled a "Good Soviet Union," is an imagined sociopolitical and economic order, which somehow resembles that of the late-Soviet past, while lacking its inherent flaws. Elements of the Soviet legacy were selectively chosen for the sake of preservation of the politico-economic status quo. They include the hierarchical mechanism of governance, low circulation of elites and their privileged status, state control over media, and repressions toward organized dissent. Meanwhile, other elements of the late-Soviet past, such as relatively low inequality and certain state social guarantees, have been discarded. A "Good Soviet Union" model includes not only market economy and no shortages of goods and services, but also a lack of institutional constraints on rent-seeking and legalization of wealth and status of elites. In this article, we consider a "Good Soviet Union" as a socially constructed legacy of the past and focus on mechanisms of translation of this legacy into Russia's current agenda through the use of modern Russian cinematography and analysis of policy preferences on the part of political elites. We further consider its effects on politics and policy-making, as well as its limitations and constraints. Some implications of the social construction of Soviet legacies are discussed in the conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]