Administrative Extremism as a Mechanism of Loyalty Management: An Analysis of Law Enforcement Practices, 2014–2023

This peer-reviewed research article examines the transformation of law-enforcement practices in the application of anti-extremism legislation in the Russian Federation between 2014 and 2023. The study focuses on the interaction between criminal prosecution mechanisms and administrative enforcement tools, including fines, warnings, disciplinary procedures, and other forms of preventive regulation. Particular attention is given to institutional changes following the 2021 designation of several civic organizations as extremist, which expanded the scope of criminal liability for participation in their activities. Using qualitative analysis of publicly available court decisions, official explanations, and documented case materials, the article investigates how enforcement practices have evolved across two regulatory layers: a criminal level directed at organizations formally recognized as extremist, and an administrative level that operates as a broader system of everyday regulatory discipline. The research identifies the emergence of a condition of normative uncertainty in which the boundaries of legally permissible civic behavior become difficult to interpret. The findings suggest that the combined application of criminal and administrative measures functions as a mechanism of loyalty management that shapes patterns of civic participation and public expression. Even in the absence of widespread criminal prosecution, administrative enforcement and procedural interventions contribute to behavioral adaptation, including digital self-censorship, distancing from civic initiatives, and changes in educational, professional, and migration strategies among students and young professionals. The article contributes to interdisciplinary debates on legal uncertainty, administrative discretion, and the “chilling effect” in contemporary governance systems. By situating law-enforcement practices within a broader framework of political sociology and legal theory, the study demonstrates how regulatory ambiguity can influence civic behavior through anticipatory self-restriction rather than direct coercion. The version deposited in Zenodo represents the peer-reviewed scholarly publication and corresponds to the author’s original research without substantive modification.