國家與政治動員：俄羅斯工會與青年組織的案例探討

The State and Its Political Mobilisation: Studies on Russian Trade Unions and Youth Organisation

俄國政治研究多指出普京總統的治理使得俄羅斯從1991年蘇聯解體以來啟動的民主化倒退回威權統治的時代。以普京為中心，以侍從關係型態為主的政黨體系和其他行政控制，強化和維持既成的中央集權體制。相應於政權轉型，民間部門在近20年來也傾向由當權者收編與限縮的方向。俄羅斯政府利用掌控的資源與立法工具，包括操控社會團體立案合法性、直接的金錢資助，換取社會團體領導者的順從，俄羅斯民間團體得向權力黨靠攏，以換取穩固的組織存續。本文從俄羅斯勞工與青年這兩股社會運動的個案切入，分析運動代言者與國家資源的分配關係，其領導階層儘管試圖在俄羅斯政黨政治舞台上取得一席之地，實質上附屬於權力黨與國家。從社會團體、政黨與國家間互動關係亦關注到後共俄羅斯的兩任領導人皆立基於威權統合主義的實踐，但普京的強人形象與威權統合能力超越葉爾辛失敗的社會統合主義，成為俄羅斯強權政治成功的實現者。本文近一步對照分析普京領導的「國家」如何有效抑制異議勢力與政治動員，成功攏絡與控制親政府組織成為主要的控制變項。當俄國在普京主義發展下進入「鞏固的威權政體」，上述條件讓未來的俄羅斯領袖亟易效法延續。 Many who study Russian politics worry that President Putin’s rule has caused the democratization among the country’s youth to ‘derail’,, while the regime has now come to prefer a model of managed democracy. As Putin is at the very core of centralised state power, the regime has employed patron-client relations to mobilise and control the current Russian political system. Accordingly, many parts of Russia’s civil society have also encountered struggles within a narrowing space and have become vulnerable to resource distribution. With their brutal control of administrative resources and legal means, Russian political elites have successfully made social organisations become associated with the government, in order for the latter to survive under the authoritarian climate. This paper refers to studies on the relationship between the Russian state, trade unions and youth organisations. In particular, although the leadership of both FNPR (the state trade union) and NASHI (the pro-Putin youth organisation) certainly had great ambitions for leading their organisations towards an active influence on Russia’s political stage, they essentially became affiliated with the party of power and Putin’s state. What is also noteworthily is that the characteristics of Putin’s political practices share a similar tendency towards an authoritarian model as Russia’s social corporatism under Yeltsin. Putinism has demonstrated an effective approach to a workable authoritarian regime. Perhaps the lessons have provided Putin’s successors with a grand vision to follow.

Many who study Russian politics worry that President Putin’s rule has caused the democratization among the country’s youth to ‘derail’,, while the regime has now come to prefer a model of managed democracy. As Putin is at the very core of centralised state power, the regime has employed patron-client relations to mobilise and control the current Russian political system. Accordingly, many parts of Russia’s civil society have also encountered struggles within a narrowing space and have become vulnerable to resource distribution. With their brutal control of administrative resources and legal means, Russian political elites have successfully made social organisations become associated with the government, in order for the latter to survive under the authoritarian climate. This paper refers to studies on the relationship between the Russian state, trade unions and youth organisations. In particular, although the leadership of both FNPR (the state trade union) and NASHI (the pro-Putin youth organisation) certainly had great ambitions for leading their organisations towards an active influence on Russia’s political stage, they essentially became affiliated with the party of power and Putin’s state. What is also noteworthily is that the characteristics of Putin’s political practices share a similar tendency towards an authoritarian model as Russia’s social corporatism under Yeltsin. Putinism has demonstrated an effective approach to a workable authoritarian regime. Perhaps the lessons have provided Putin’s successors with a grand vision to follow.