analysis of the evolving electoral and party systems during the Putin years does tend to re-inforce this reader’s belief that Andreas Schedler’s notion of electoral authoritarian- ism, where a regime controls the electoral process to maintain its dominance, remains the most accurate concep- tualization of the Russian political system. The almost per- manent revolution of electoral reform described here, involving the raising and lowering of thresholds and the chopping and changing from mixed to proportional systems is not evidence of a democratizing country finding its way in the world through trial and error. Instead, as Hutcheson rightly asserts, Russian electoral law is no longer the rule- book for the game, ‘it has become part of the game, shifting a level playing field into a sloping one to the advantage of some organisations over others’ (p. 85). Hutcheson tends to downplay the extent and impact of electoral fraud and points to the increasing transparency of the electoral process after the head of the electoral com- mission, Vladimir Churov (whose infamous ‘first law’ was that ‘Putin is always right’) had been replaced by Ella Pamfilova, a woman with rather more liberal credentials. Nevertheless, fraud and manipulation have not disappeared altogether and are still prevalent in particular regions where loyal functionaries continue to over-fulfil the quota for their master in the Kremlin. Evidence suggests, however, that even the type of overt electoral fraud which triggered widespread protests in 2011-12, has not actually changed electoral outcomes. This does rather beg the question, ‘then why do it?’ The answer can be found by considering the nature of the regime: electoral authoritarianism cannot allow even the smallest opening for opposition for fear of a challenge it cannot control. For such an empirically rich study with its detailed sta- tistical analysis of election results, voter profiles, party strategies and so on, this is a very readable book, one which is clearly based on many years’ experience in the field. Material gleaned from a series of focus groups makes sure that this is not simply a top-down study focusing on institutions. As the author notes, he has served as an inter- national elections observer on a number of occasions and I did wonder whether he might have made more use of his experiences. Excellent use is made of examples to illustrate key themes. For instance, when examining the role of United Russia in co-opting regional elites, we are introduced to the charming mayor of Novokuznetsk (pp. 166–167) who, in the style of a mid-level mafia boss, leans on local business people to ensure they produce a convincing victory for the party of power. One can almost hear him: ‘nice factory you have, a shame if something happened to it’. One might assume that Putin has achieved everything he set out to achieve and that today’s stable party system featuring its four ‘parliamentary cartel’ parties and a per- manent pro-presidential majority in the State Duma is des- tined to always be with us. Hutcheson concludes, however, that despite the routinized nature of elections and the see- mingly institutionalized entrenchment of the party system, the current stability (of both the party system and, by exten- sion, the political system) may yet prove to be a mirage. Putin’s system, which relies on its component parts ‘func- tioning by inertia’ (p. 264) has inevitably led to a period of stagnation reminiscent of the late Brezhnev years. In the mid-1980s, a new cadre of political leaders, led by Mikhail Gorbachev, emerged to tackle what had become an exis- tential crisis. For all its apparent stability, the Putin regime, increasingly reliant on an aggressive, nationalist foreign policy stance to mobilize domestic support, may yet face its sternest challenge. One things is for certain, such a challenge will not come from the current leaders of the parties discussed here: most are coming to the ends of their political careers and few have ever offered a serious alter- native to either the Yeltsin or Putin presidencies. The fact that the party system has been so tightly controlled and the parliament so emasculated suggests that we may need to look elsewhere for future potential change: either from extra-parliamentary forces or, more likely, from within the regime itself. Sabri Sayarı, Pelin Ayan Musil and O ¨ zhan Demirkol (eds), Party Politics in Turkey: A Comparative Perspective, London/ New York, NY: Routledge, 2018; xvi þ 246 pp.: ISBN 9781138207547, £115.00 (hbk) Reviewed by: Toygar Sinan Baykan, Kırklareli University, Turkey DOI: 10.1177/1354068820984272 For a very long time, students of Turkish party politics have engaged with theories and concepts generated in Western liberal democracies in an uncritical and non-innovative fashion. Instead, this volume edited by Sayarı, Ayan Musil and Demirkol offers a critical perspective that is more cau- tious and innovative when it comes to applying concepts and theories derived from liberal democracies to the party politics of Turkey. As indicated in the volume’s introduc- tory chapter, under the conditions of “much weaker welfare regimes and slower development of communication and technological infrastructures” (p. 2) parties and party sys- tems in the developing world have shown remarkably dif- ferent organizational and institutional features. In a very useful general account of the literature on party politics in Turkey, Sayarı reiterates the problems of looking at Turkish party politics from the perspective of concepts and theories derived from the study of Western party sys- tems. According to Sayarı, this tendency has inhibited a Book reviews 387