Can Movements be Strategic Under Authoritarianism?

This talk will apply the strategic interactionist perspective (Jasper & Duyvendak, 2015; McGarry et al., 2016) to examine how strategic action transforms in authoritarian political context, with a specific focus on Russia. I will argue that, even under increasingly repressive and hostile conditions, social movements and civic initiatives make choices based on their understanding of the situation, their analysis of the adversaries and potential allies, and face dilemmas which require strategic decision-making (Jasper, 2006). These dilemmas are not necessarily unique to authoritarian political regimes, but can become more pronounced: “naughty or nice,” for example, was faced by the Russian opposition movement and included concerns whether to engage in radical actions (e.g., protesting without permits) or to choose more moderate, less confrontational tactics. “Being There” dilemma relates to the strategic choice of whether to participate in arenas (e.g., elections) that are heavily controlled by the state. One of the most prominent dilemmas under authoritarianism is the “Cooptation Dilemma,” which is particularly relevant for local movements. It involves weighing the benefits of collaboration with authorities (e.g., gaining access to resources or decision-making) against the risk of being co-opted and losing critical independence. Another dilemma often shaping the strategies of social movements operating in politically constrained regimes is the politicization dilemma: local movements often frame their activities as "apolitical" to avoid state repression and attract broader support. Thus, strategy in the context of Russian activism is about operating within and overcoming constraints (significant limitations on movements’ actions, including state repression, political apathy, and a lack of resources); influencing political landscape (changing public opinion, creating new activist networks) and adapting to changing circumstances (Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a shock to the political strategic action fields (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011) that the activists still remaining in the country had to adjust to.