This event will be held virtually as a Zoom webinar and streamed via YouTube Live. There will be no in-person event.
To register and access live stream links, visit the event page on our website: https://harriman.columbia.edu/event/rule-of-law-series-kathryn-hendley
Register here for the Zoom webinar, or tune in on YouTube Live.
Please join us for an event in our Rule of Law in Autocracy: The Legal Dimension of Russian Politics speaker series, a presentation by Kathryn Hendley (University of Wisconsin-Madison).
This event is supported by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Scholars have long debated whether judicial independence can exist under authoritarianism. Missing from this debate are the voices of those living under authoritarianism. Kathryn Hendley's presentation refocuses attention on these voices. Drawing on responses to a question that asked Russians whether they thought their judges were under the thumb of political elites, which was included in two surveys fielded independently in 2008 and 2018, her analysis explores what factors drive the respondents’ beliefs and the extent to which their attitudes have evolved over time. Among the relationships to be explored are the role of respondents’ education, their experiences with the legal system, and their attitudes towards law.
Rule of Law in Autocracy: The Legal Dimension of Russian Politics
2021 Speaker Series
In authoritarian political systems, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and law enforcement are typically viewed as mere instruments of autocratic rule, or at best, a democratic facade. In this conventional image, authoritarian institutions exist only for formal reasons and do not exert meaningful impact independently of the executive branch of government.
But recent scholarship has uncovered unexpected dynamics of the impact of law on Russian politics. Authoritarian influence over the diverse legal institutions is not as overwhelming as conventional wisdom has presumed. Scholars instead are revealing how authoritarian legal and judicial institutions resemble their democratic counterparts, including in their response to bureaucratic incentives and public opinion, or in being driven by the metrics of performance evaluation rather than central directives. Learn more about the series >>