Paper long abstract:

Does exposure to online information during politically contentious events alter political beliefs or simply reinforce previously held views? A contemporary assumption is widespread that individuals change their minds when exposed to new information on social media. This paper demonstrates that Russia's engagement in information warfare in Ukraine after the Maidan events of 2014 had only modest effects. Using Twitter to map voluntary reproduction of the pro-Kremlin narrative -- which was broadcast 24 hours a day on every state-controlled television station for months -- we find weak evidence that beliefs changed very much among Russian speakers residing in Ukraine.

Paper long abstract:

The presidential elections of 2017 in Kyrgyzstan, beyond the celebrations of first-time peaceful handover of power from one elected president to another, raise serious questions about the larger and longer picture of the election year. The outgoing President Atambaev, starting from late 2016 till the very last days of his presidency in late 2017, ran a political sprint of aggressive action in the country, letting sparks spillover to foreign affairs. He could not enjoy the privilege of being a ͞lame duck͟ president, as it happens with late-term presidents in established democracies, and luckily for him, he did not have to.

This paper posits the question of whether in an institutionally fragile state and a "limited access order" (Douglass North et al, 2007) an outgoing head of state is subject to the "lame duck" syndrome as observed in established electoral democracies such as the United States. The provisional answer, based on early analysis, is "No". This paper will explore and analyse more fully the case in point to corroborate or revise the provisional answer and spell out its logic. But more importantly, the paper will be able to contribute a broader critical discussion of democratization and democracy building, a critical look at the concept of patronal politics as proposed by Henry Hale, and a rejoinder to the theme of formal vs informal politics that has received some treatment already but is not quite exhausted yet. In developing the critical thread of thought on all these three themes, the paper will draw on the conceptual framework of ͚limited access orders͛ of North, Barry Weingast and others in a series of works since 2007. In a word, the challenge posed is that of taking the fledgling, non-rule of law states as they are, and thinking about their eventual development into rule of law states - and open "access orders"- realistically and contextually.

The paper will be based on close analysis of key threads of political developments - events and strategies - during the presidency of Almazbek Atambayev, especially in the last pre-election year, and in the immediate post-election period (as it actively unfolds when this proposal is being written), relying on sources as varied as local news reports, official and informal political statements, relevant analyses and reports by various sources and interviews with a number of well-informed ͚insiders͛.

Paper short abstract:

On the example of two cities - Almaty and Bishkek - this paper examines reimagining of social order in urban areas by two different types of actors: municipal authorities and urban activists.

Paper long abstract:

Across Eurasia, municipal authorities still function on the inertia of Soviet urban planning and see a city as a system of organized and controlled spaces. Their ideas are increasingly confronted by urbanists, usually collectives of young activists, who propagate ideas of a public space as a sum of diverse human activity, not one that directs it. On the example of two cities - Almaty and Bishkek - this paper examines reimagining of social order in urban areas by two different types of actors: municipal authorities and urban activists. Each group defines personal mobility differently. One restrains spontaneity and establishes regulations, another values freedom and comfort of movement. Authorities prioritize economic growth and disciplined behavior of city residents, while urbanists strive for enjoyable and inclusive spaces. Urban planners see modernity as a way of advancing technological control of a public space through surveillance and policing. Urbanists erect modern art installations to invite creative public participation within a space. Surprisingly, urbanists and municipal authorities in Kazakhstan collaborate more frequently than in Kyrgyzstan where both groups are typically confrontational to each other. One explanation is urbanists in Kyrgyzstan politicize their engagement with urban planners, whereas in Kazakhstan this group of civic activists avoids presenting own ideas in a political light.