"A key tenet of CDDRL's research agenda is identifying ways to foster democracy, both domestically and around the world," said Mosbacher Director Kathryn Stoner. "The work being done by the Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL) is intrinsically aligned with our Center's mission. The work that Jim Fishkin and his colleagues have already done is truly unique and field-defining. At CDDRL, we look forward to further building on this outstanding track record to establish the Deliberative Democracy Lab as the global hub for developing, administering, and analyzing deliberative polling. No other university has anything like it."

“We believe the methods of deliberative democracy can help cure the ills of our current politics — in the US and around the world,” shared Fishkin. “This partnership with CDDRL and FSI will give us a new basis for trying to make this happen. We are proud to join the impressive collection of scholars already at work here on issues of democracy and political reform.”

Fishkin, who has been named a Senior Fellow at FSI, will continue to serve as the Lab’s Director alongside Siu as Associate Director, now a Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL. Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI, will also continue to be affiliated with the Lab as a faculty collaborator.

“In the United States and around the world, democracies must find new ways to elicit citizen engagement, deeper public participation in policy-making, and reduce toxic levels of political polarization,” said Diamond. “The method of Deliberative Polling that Jim Fishkin and Alice Siu have developed and applied worldwide has demonstrated impressive progress toward these goals, and it has been my honor to collaborate with them.”

Rounding out the team for the newly formed Lab, Tom Schnaubelt, currently Director of the Haas Center for Public Service, will join DDL in a new role as Lecturer and Senior Advisor on Civic Education, effective August 1, 2022. “The Deliberative Democracy Lab is an exciting addition to the work of CDDRL, and as Senior Advisor, Tom Schnaubelt will greatly advance our efforts to promote deliberation and civic engagement among college students,” Diamond added.

Schnaubelt began his tenure at the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University in April 2009 and has been actively involved in developing innovative community engagement programs in higher education settings for nearly two decades. Prior to assuming the role of executive director at the Haas Center for Public Service, Tom served as dean for community engagement and civic learning at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside and was the founding executive director of Wisconsin Campus Compact, where he provided leadership for a coalition of thirty-four college and university presidents and chancellors committed to the civic purposes of higher education.

“I’ve been increasingly concerned about the fragility of our democracy,” shared Schnaubelt. “I believe that sustaining, strengthening, and perhaps even saving our democracy is a prerequisite to creating a more just and sustainable world. I also believe that universities have a distinct and important role to play in advancing liberal democracy, particularly through the cultivation of democratic knowledge, habits, skills, and dispositions. As I begin this next chapter, I am grateful for the opportunity, and I am thrilled to be able to be a part of Stanford University’s efforts to build a more perfect union.”

As political polarization becomes a more urgent challenge to democracy in the United States and elsewhere, and as a growing number of democratic jurisdictions look for innovative ways to involve the public more meaningfully in decision-making, the demand for Deliberative Polls is increasing. In its new home at CDDRL, the Lab will be able to enhance its capacity to meet growing demands and expand the contributions it can make to both the study and the practice of deliberative democracy.

Let’s start with a broad look at opposition movements and their place in modern Russia. What role have opposition movements played in Russian society since the end of the Soviet Era in the late 1980s and early 1990s?

After the attempt by the Communist Party of Russia to forcibly seize political control in the 1991 August Coup, the course towards democratic reforms was supported by the majority of the Russian population. However, the democratic politicians were divided, and they had little to no experience with public political activity or organizing participation in elections. They failed to offer a clear, intelligible  plan for reforming the country and get it across to voters.                     

With the exception of certain leaders like Foreign Minister A. Kozyrev, human rights ombudsman S. Kovalev, and Deputy Prime Minister B. Nemtsov, truly democratic politicians were not widely represented in power at this time, and did not have a significant influence on state policy. Many of the politicians in power used pro-democracy ideals and the language of human rights as a mask to further their own, more selfish interests. Then with the economic crash in 1998, radical rhetoric and a revitalized communist party began to regain support.

Ultimately, a strong democratic party never emerged in Russia and deeply rooted democratic institutions were not built. The corruption and false promises corroded trust in democracy and undermined many Russian’s belief in liberalism. When Putin came to power in the late 90s, he took advantage of the chaos and further crushed many of the structures of the state. By the 2000s, he had tightened control over the legislature and elections and removed almost all competition from within the power system.

Today, few opposition forces survive. The leading figure is Alexei Navalny, and the goal of his movement has been to promote the idea of democratic change and the change of Putin's regime as essential prerequisite for other structural reforms in Russia. His followers were refused the right to register as an official political party under false, far-fetched pretexts, and the organization was declared by the state as an extremist organization and subjected to countless, baseless criminal charges. Like most opposition politicians, Navalny is now in prison. But these attacks only show how in the last 10 years, he has truly become a viable competitor that Vladimir Putin’s regime fears.

You work with the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Фонд борьбы с коррупцией), which was founded by Alexei Navalny in 2011. What has your network’s approach been to combatting corruption and systemic issues in Russia?

Our team investigates corruption crimes and collects legal evidence that we send to various law enforcement agencies as part of our efforts to bring those responsible to justice. At the same time, we focus public attention on these problems, demonstrating the negative impact that corruption and criminal activity has on all spheres of life. It’s important for people to understand that corruption is a foundational element of the system Vladimir Putin and his cronies built. Without removing him and his supporters from power, it will not be possible for serious reforms or deep democratization of state mechanisms to take place.

We’ve actively worked to propose anti-corruption bills and support those who are trying to ratify international standards like article 20 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which criminalizes illicit enrichment. Representatives of our team have participated in elections and conducted dozens of election campaigns throughout the country at all levels of government, from municipal and regional to the presidential elections in the Russian Federation. Our team also worked with authoritative Russian economists and experts such as Sergei Guriev and Sergei Aleksashenko to develop projects for economic and political reforms.

We’ve won several elections in both city and regional parliaments, and have also developed and successfully applied the Smart Voting project to help coordinate voting in support of promising opponents of Putin's United Russia party. But all this being said, we’ve faced strong opposition from the authorities, the police, and the FSB with each victory.
 

How have you and other activists had to adapt since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the further crackdowns in Russia against opposition voices and protests?

Repressions against our team began even before the attack on Ukraine. In the fall of 2020, the FSB tried to kill Alexei Navalny by poisoning him with the military-grade nerve agent Novichok. After an investigation into this poisoning and his return to Russia, he was imprisoned. Our group, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FKB) was declared an extremist group and a foreign agent by the Kremlin and liquidated. In practice, this means we are banned from participating in political work like elections and protests. This has essentially created a ban on any political opposition activity in Russia.

Under such conditions, most of our team has evacuated to neighboring countries and continues to work from exile. We still influence the minds and moods in Russia through our internet media resources, which have an audience of millions. Conducting one-time protests is currently impossible in the country due to the introduction of repressive laws, but we continue to encourage our supporters to participate in elections under the Smart Voting strategy. We stand up for increasing the number of our supporters and for the trust of the people, while increasing the political costs for Putin, reducing his personal rating, and diminishing the standing of the United Russia party.

What can supporters of democracy across the world do to help the work you and other activists from Russia are doing?

After the attack on Ukraine, the best thing the rest of the world can do is to help Ukraine to get everything it needs to win this war. Ukraine's victory is Putin's loss.

The war unleashed by Putin is criminal not only in relation to Ukraine and Ukrainians, but also to Russia. It contradicts Russia’s national interests and literally destroys its future. Putin and his regime are a common enemy for Russians, Ukrainians, and the entire democratic world.

But the war is not only on the battlefields and in the Ukrainian cities. This war has an economic front, and Western countries need to intensify their efforts to deprive the Kremlin of its resources to continue the war. There also needs to be much tougher personal sanctions against Putin’s officials and propagandists.
 

Despite what the propaganda tries to portray, Russia is not homogenous and support for Putin is far from being ironclad. Putin has not won the entire information war for Russian’s attitudes. That’s why we at FKB consider it our duty to continue countering false information and tell Russians the truth about the war and Putin’s crimes.

We want the democratic community to understand how important this work is for victory in the war and the post-war reconstruction of Russia. While the physical fighting might be localized to Eastern Europe, the war will have far-reaching consequences across the globe. Its outcome will determine the vector of development for the entire world: either towards democracy or to totalitarianism. That’s why victory on the side of justice and rights in this war is important not only for the people of Ukraine and Russia, but for everyone, everywhere.