國家社會主義制度下的蘇聯，政治和經濟集權化，國家對社會進行全面而深入的干預與管控。一直到了蘇聯末期，戈巴契夫推動「重建」與「公開性」等重要的改革政策之後，公民社會才開始萌芽。一九九一年蘇聯正式解體後，共產黨的威權統治被民主制度取代，因此，俄國的公民社會、民主制度和市場經濟的建立，幾乎是同步進行的。由於葉爾欽為了能順利進行改革而不受到社會的牽絆，因而對公民社會刻意疏離。公民社會就在政治混亂與經濟衰退的條件下，自謀生路。 在進入了普丁時代後，為結束俄國轉型過程中的混亂，普丁透過「垂直的總統權力」與「法律獨裁」手段來打造強大的國家。俄羅斯原本的混合政權在普丁「管理式民主」的治理下，以轉型為某種準威權主義政權。 在普丁「管理式民主」框架下的國家與公民社會關係是：國家承認公民社會的存在，並為公民社會提供制度性的法律保障，同時，國家也要對公民社會進行必要的干預和調節，為公民社會確立人人適用的普遍法律規則、對公民社會自身無力解決的矛盾或衝突進行干預協調；然而在這裡，存在一個國家對公民社會干預的界限確定問題。而二ＯＯ一年十一月由克里姆林宮所舉辦的「公民論壇」則是最受爭議也最具有代表性的例子。普丁透過公開的對話正式地承認了公民社會團體在政治和社會上的重要性，但事實上，「公民論壇」只是政府收編俄羅斯支離破碎之公民社會的實質工具。 / Political power and economy were highly centralized under state socialism. Society was intervened thoroughly and overwhelmed by the Soviet state. Civil society was unable to emerge until the final years of the Soviet Union due to Gorbachev’s reform programs of perestroika and glasnost. Since the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Russia’s civil society, democratic institutions, and market economy have to develop simultaneously. Because of Yeltsin’s alienated attitude toward civil society for the sake of smooth reforms without considering social demands, civil society had to develop on its own under the conditions of political chaos and economic depression. In order to end the transition turmoil left by Yeltsin, Putin has been trying to craft a strong state through the “presidential vertical” and the “dictatorship of law.” Russia’s hybrid regime under Putin has been transformed to a sort of quasi-authoritarianism which is caused by the so called “managed democracy.” The relationship between the state and civil society under the framework of “managed democracy” is the following: State recognizes the existence of civil society and provides legal regulations for the latter’s development. The Civic Forum which was held in November 2001 by the Kremlin authorities represented the most controversial case of state’s role in the development of civil society. Putin officially recognized the importance of civil society through open dialogue, but in fact the Civic Forum was just a tool for the government to co-opt Russia’s fragmented civil society.

This Master's thesis reflects the theory of American political philosopher S. Wolin. The work introduces the reader to interpretations of S. Wolin's term inverted totalitarianism and confronts it with the common and mainstream approaches to totalitarianism. It is concerned about S. Wolin's reflection on contemporary western liberal democracy as managed democracy. The text pays attention to work of G. Agamben who takes a similar critique on the form of Euro-Atlantic democracy; for instance the thesis deals with his view of state of exception in which the author sees connections on inverted totalitarianism. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)