Re-legitimation after the destabilization of shared-power structures in authoritarian regimes: the case of Kazakhstan and Russia

Abstract

How do authoritarian leaders re-legitimate presidential authority after moments of protest and unrest? This thesis examines this question through a comparative analysis of Russia after the 2011-2012 protests and Kazakhstan after the January 2022 events. Both cases are post- Soviet authoritarian regimes in which political authority had been divided between a predecessor and a successor, and both faced the need to reconstruct presidential authority after political contestation. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, this study analyzes presidential speeches, official addresses, and campaign articles. It argues that both cases transformed unrest into reasons for renewed presidential centrality, but through different strategies. In Russia, Putin’s return was re-legitimated through continuity, sovereignty, state strength, and the protection of the post-2000 order. In Kazakhstan, Tokayev’s authority was re-legitimated through corrective renewal, selective rupture from the Nazarbayev-era order, reform and justice. Ultimately, this thesis argues that the re-legitimation in authoritarian regimes should be understood not only as an institutional or coercive process, but also as a discursive process through which leaders interpret protests and the past, and make renewed presidential centrality appear necessary.