PSCRP-BESA Reports No 235 (September 30, 2026)
Preamble
The formation of the State Duma of the ninth convocation following the elections of September 18–20, 2026, was accompanied not only by an updating of the personal composition of the chamber, but also by a redistribution of leadership positions within parliamentary factions, committees, and standing commissions. The assessments presented in analytical materials permit examination of this process through several interrelated aspects: the correlation of party forces, continuity of leadership, personnel movements, changes in the organizational structure of committees, and mechanisms for coordinating key appointments.
In preparing this report, we consciously concentrated exclusively on the indisputable results of these elections – the new composition of the lower house of parliament and new leaders of the State Duma at the level of committees and commissions. This decision was not arbitrary.
To our considerable regret, the political confrontation between supporters and opponents of the current authorities in Russia has affected the analytical community as well. Academic rigor has given way to political partisanship. These destructive processes for academic analysis have penetrated even those analytical centers that for decades served as models of objective political science analysis. Ultimately, political preferences have triumphed over academic objectivity.
Without attempting to condemn anyone, we have chosen a different path – in our analysis to rely solely on facts that are not disputed by any of the sides of the ideological conflict. We offer an analysis of these uncontested facts in this text.
Knowing that the materials of the Begin-Sadat Center have a substantial readership, including from Russia, we consciously imposed one additional restriction on our report. The authors, so as not to create a difficult position for our Russian audience, refrained from using texts from those analytical centers and sources that are officially recognized in Russia as undesirable, extremist, or possessing the status of foreign agent. In this we see a sign of respect toward our audience from Russia.
Party Configuration of the New Composition of the State Duma
The final results of the elections, officially announced on September 25, 2026, determined the new factional configuration of the State Duma. “United Russia” obtained 349 of 450 parliamentary mandates, including 140 mandates from the federal list and 209 from single-mandate districts. The KPRF obtained 37 mandates, the LDPR – 23, “New People” – 19, “Fair Russia – For Truth” – 17, “Rodina” – one mandate, and four additional mandates were obtained by independent candidates.
Such a distribution of seats determined the institutional context for the subsequent formation of the chamber’s leadership and the distribution of committee positions. Analysts regarded the correlation of faction size simultaneously as the quantitative basis for distributing offices and as one of the factors determining parties’ negotiating possibilities in forming governing bodies.
Special attention in the brief was given to the circumstance that 46 elected deputies were participants in the conflict in the southeastern part of Russia and Ukraine. According to data from the Central Election Commission, 41 of them were elected from “United Russia.” Reuters characterized the representation of veterans among deputies as record-breaking for the entire period of existence of modern Russian statehood – approximately 10 percent of the total number. At the same time, the theme of the entry into parliament of participants in the conflict in southeastern Russia and Ukraine in the studied materials was examined by analytical sources as one element of a broader process of personnel renewal and does not exhaust its substance.
Preservation of the Speaker and Formation of the Chamber’s Leadership Configuration
The key personnel decision preceding the first session of the new convocation was the nomination of Vyacheslav Volodin for the position of chairman of the State Duma. Volodin has held the position of chairman of the State Duma since 2016 and was again elected as a deputy from a single-mandate district in Saratov Oblast.
The party communication of “United Russia” characterized Volodin’s nomination as a decision made “in coordination with Vladimir Putin,” although such coordination is not legally required. Simultaneously, the party presented the advancement of Irina Yarova to the position of first deputy chairman of the Duma as elements of the proposed leadership configuration of the Duma of the ninth convocation. The proposed leadership structure provided for two first deputy chairs and nine deputy chairs, totaling eleven leadership positions.
At the same time, on September 29, the KPRF faction supported the candidacy of Dmitry Novikov as an alternative candidate for the position of chairman of the State Duma, while simultaneously confirming Gennady Zyuganov as leader of the faction. Thus, the materials record a combination of coordination of the distribution of leadership positions between factions with the preservation of the permissibility of separate factional nomination of an alternative candidacy for a key parliamentary position, which is not regarded by the country’s political leadership as party disloyalty.
A distinctive feature of the proposed leadership composition was the high degree of parliamentary experience of several candidates for deputy chair positions. “Vedomosti” noted that the candidates proposed for these positions in the ninth convocation possessed substantially more extensive parliamentary experience compared to the average indicator for the deputy corps. Mikhail Vinogradov, president of the “Petersburg Politics” Foundation, interpreted the preservation of the current leadership as a factor of continuity and stability, while simultaneously characterizing the speaker-oriented model as an institutional feature of the current convocation. Evgeny Minchenko of “Minchenko Consulting” drew attention to the possible increase in substantive conflict due to greater differentiation of the Duma, but also noted the manageability associated with a constitutional majority. In his assessment, the number of deputy chairs acquired special significance as a resource of institutional influence. Thus, in the presented Russian assessments, the preservation of the chairman and a significant part of the leadership corps is examined primarily through the categories of continuity, organizational stability, and the distribution of institutional resources.
Distribution of Committee Chairmanships Between Factions
On September 29, “United Russia” formally nominated twenty candidates for the positions of committee chairs. The candidacies were unanimously supported by the faction. Thus, the number of committee chairs proposed by “United Russia” increased from 17 in the eighth convocation to 20 in the ninth. At the same time, the party itself reported unanimous support for all twenty candidacies within the faction. Analysts characterized such a configuration as a continuation of the established practice of distributing committee leadership among parliamentary forces. The source emphasized that the main organizational shift was associated with the appearance of additional committees, whereas a substantial portion of the sitting chairs maintained their specialized areas.
The oldest Russian business outlet “Kommersant” specifically highlighted new appointments of Vladislav Golovin to the committee on youth policy, Oleg Matytsin to the committee on physical culture and sport, Vladimir Kasatonov to the committee on defense, and Yuri Petrov to the committee on criminal and administrative legislation, while simultaneously noting the preservation of Andrey Makarov, Vladimir Gutenev, and Vasily Piskarev in their respective committees.
Meanwhile, Pavel Sklyanchuk of the Russian Center for Current Politics linked committee chair positions to the possibility of centralized management of the parliamentary agenda and their significance for lobbying activity.
Personnel Continuity in Committees
One of the most notable characteristics of the proposed composition of committees was a high degree of personnel continuity – twelve deputies previously held committee chair positions three times. Among such leaders were representatives of “United Russia,” the KPRF, the LDPR, and “Fair Russia.” Thus, continuity extended not only to the largest parliamentary faction but also to representatives of various party groups. Taken together, the presented data permit registration of a combination of two personnel processes: the preservation of a substantial portion of experienced leaders and targeted movements of individual deputies to new areas. In the presented sources, precisely this combination is regarded as one of the distinctive characteristics of the formation of the ninth convocation.
Redistribution of the International Committee Chairmanship
A separate personnel change was the redistribution of leadership of the committee on international affairs. In the eighth convocation, it was chaired by LDPR chairman Leonid Slutsky. In the ninth convocation, the committee was proposed to be transferred to Petr Tolstoy.
Leading publications already in August reported that “United Russia” was considering the possibility of returning one of the major committees and named Petr Tolstoy as the main candidate. On September 24, “Interfax” confirmed his formal nomination.
Tolstoy’s transition from the position of deputy chairman of the State Duma to the leadership of a committee signified a change in institutional function within the chamber’s leadership corps while preserving his position in the parliamentary elite. Simultaneously, a change in party affiliation of the committee’s leadership occurred: from the LDPR to “United Russia.”
In the context of intra-elite processes, this case differs from simple personnel rotation: the change affected simultaneously the official position of a specific deputy and the inter-factional distribution of one of the most prominent specialized areas.
Division of the Committee on State Construction and the Creation of New Specialized Areas
Another significant structural change was the division of the previous committee on state construction and legislation. Pavel Krasheninnikov was proposed to lead the direction of constitutional, civil legislation, and the judicial system, whereas Yuri Petrov – the former head of Rosimushchestvo – was considered as chair of the new separate committee on criminal and administrative legislation. Analysts noted that the previous unified committee dealt with approximately one-quarter of the legislative work of the State Duma and interacted with Kremlin lawyers in the preparation of significant bills.
Thus, the division of competencies had not only an organizational but also a functional aspect: two large groups of legislative questions received independent committee structures. At the same time, one of the most experienced chamber leaders retained a key legislative direction. In parallel, a new committee on digital development and artificial intelligence was created. Aleksandr Sidyakin was proposed as its chair. His competence was to include artificial intelligence, electronic commerce, the development of unmanned systems, and marketplaces – areas previously distributed among several committees.
Sidyakin was a deputy to the State Duma for three convocations and from 2021 had chaired the Central Executive Committee of “United Russia.” Analytical publications characterized the new digital committee as a mechanism for concentrating legislative work related to technological development and areas classified as the “new economy.” In an analytical publication of September 24, the creation of the committee was also regarded as a concentration of responsibility for technological development, marketplaces, unmanned systems, and artificial intelligence.
Taken together, the division of the legislative committee and the creation of the digital committee formed the two most notable examples of changes in organizational architecture recorded in materials about preparation for the first session.
Positions of the KPRF and Other Factions in Committee Distribution
The KPRF preserved Gennady Zyuganov as leader of the faction and proposed five candidacies for committee chair positions: Vladimir Kashin, Leonid Kalashnikov, Nikolay Kharitonov, Nina Ostanina, and Sergey Gavrilov. In materials from the preparatory period, it was expected that Kashin, Kalashnikov, and Ostanina would preserve respectively the areas of agriculture, CIS affairs, and family protection. In the studied materials of analytical centers and publications, a change in the position of “Fair Russia” is separately noted. In the ninth convocation, the party received 17 mandates as opposed to 27 in the eighth. The reduction in size was regarded in preliminary publications as a factor diminishing the party’s negotiating possibilities in the distribution of chair positions.
The materials also noted that sitting committee chairs from “Fair Russia” – Anatoly Aksakov, Valery Gartung, and Sergey Kabyshev – were reelected as deputies and were considered candidates for preserving their respective areas. The reduction in “Fair Russia’s” representation in the brief is directly linked to the operating mechanism of package agreement, whereby the distribution of leadership positions in committees is correlated with the size of factions. “New People,” by contrast, increased their representation in committee leadership. Having obtained 19 mandates, the party announced three candidates for chair positions: Timur Kankov – for the committee on tourism and tourism infrastructure, Stanislav Druzhinin – for the committee on small and medium entrepreneurship, and Elena Panova – for the committee on ecology, natural resources, and environmental protection.
Thus, the number of committee chairs associated with “New People” increased from two in the eighth convocation to three in the ninth.
In the presented materials, the distribution of committee positions is characterized as a package inter-factional agreement, whereby approximately half of the chair positions fall to “United Russia,” while the remainder are distributed among other parliamentary forces taking their size into account.
Personnel Movements in the Leadership of Specialized Committees
A special place among personnel movements was occupied by the nomination of Admiral Vladimir Kasatonov for the position of committee chair on defense in place of Andrey Kartapolov. In the materials, Kasatonov is characterized as the former chief of the General Staff of the Navy and first deputy commander-in-chief of the Navy.
Another notable personnel movement was the nomination of Vladislav Golovin for the position of committee chair on youth policy. He is characterized as a notable representative of deputies connected with participants in the conflict in southeastern Russia and Ukraine, and simultaneously as a candidate included in the upper portion of the federal list of “United Russia.”
Preparation of the Committee Configuration Before the First Session
Formation of the committees began before the formal session of the new convocation. “Vedomosti” reported that sources close to the Presidential Administration and the State Duma discussed in September the future configuration of committees, the distribution of chair positions, and possible structural changes. This material supplements reports about a temporary working group created to prepare the first session. Thus, the organizational configuration of the new Duma was formed in several consecutive stages: preliminary discussion of structure and candidacies, party coordination, formal nomination of candidates, and subsequent parliamentary approval.
In this context, the distribution of committees functioned simultaneously as a personnel and an organizational process. The change in the number of committees created new leadership positions, whereas the redistribution of already existing committees among factions changed the institutional roles of individual parties and deputies.
Assessments of Veteran Representation in Analytical Centers
International analytical centers regarded the participation of former military personnel and other individuals connected with the conflict in southeastern Russia and Ukraine primarily in the context of renewal of the political-administrative personnel corps.
The Finnish Institute of International Relations (FIIA) in an analysis by Jussi Lassila and Margarita Zavadskaya of September 23 reported that Russian authorities abandoned earlier plans to bring approximately one hundred representatives of this category into the State Duma, and the final number, according to the authors’ estimate, should have consisted of approximately fifty persons. The material noted that many candidates regarded in the Duma as conflict participants already had experience working in state structures or politics.
The FIIA authors interpreted this circumstance as evidence that membership in the corresponding category itself did not determine parliamentary recruitment. Among additional characteristics mentioned were already existing political or administrative experience and inclusion in operating institutional structures.
In February 2026, the Polish OSW in a study titled “The Kremlin’s Loyal Praetorians” also questioned the expectation of approximately one hundred representatives of this category appearing in the Duma. The study noted caution regarding the formation of an independent political group capable of acquiring its own organizational autonomy. Simultaneously, the inclusion of new personnel was regarded as a mechanism for elite renewal and as a separate task of managing personnel integration.
Thus, in the presented foreign analysis, the veteran component is not reduced to a quantitative indicator. It is placed in the broader context of personnel recruitment, the combination of new and already institutionalized political figures, and the formation of mechanisms for integrating new groups into the existing system.
Changes in Requirements for the Personal Composition of the Deputy Corps
Russian analytical assessments also addressed changes in the characteristics of the deputy corps. Political scientist Konstantin Kalachev in commentary to “Vedomosti” in May 2026 noted a decline in demand for deputies oriented primarily toward media activity, since greater significance, according to his assessment, was acquired by faction discipline and manageability. Konstantin Kostin of the RPA also linked the peculiarities of the 2026 campaign to a departure from the previous model, in which politicians with sharp or radical public statements played a notable role. In his assessment, emphasis was shifting from media prominence and provocative rhetoric toward faction discipline and manageability.
At the same time, Kostin noted that a change in public sentiment might again increase the demand for politicians employing more pronounced populist rhetoric. In the same RPA publication, mention was made in connection with the assessment of the political character of the organizational question of committee distribution and the necessity to maintain balance between factions. Thus, personnel parameters of the deputy corps and the organizational configuration of committees were regarded in a unified context of managing parliamentary interaction.
The Eighth Convocation as an Institutional Point of Departure
The German SWP cited data presented by Vyacheslav Volodin at the concluding plenary session: 26 percent of successful legislative initiatives were submitted on a cross-factional basis, and 68.5 percent of laws received support from all parliamentary groups. In the SWP analytical construction, these indicators were used to characterize a combination of formal parliamentary pluralism with a high degree of political agreement. Thus, personnel changes in the ninth convocation were examined against the background of the institutional practice of the previous composition, rather than in isolation from it.
Parliamentary Structure as a Space for Intra-Elite Interaction
In the presented aggregate of materials, committee structure functions as an independent level of intra-elite processes. Chair positions are simultaneously connected with legislative specialization, organizational control over specialized work, and the possibility of influencing the formation of the parliamentary agenda.
Pavel SklyanChuk from the Russian Center for Current Politics directly linked committee chair positions to their significance for managing the agenda and lobbying activity.
In this connection, the redistribution of positions between factions has several dimensions. First, it reflects the numerical correlation of deputy groups. Second, it determines the party affiliation of leaders of individual areas. Third, it affects the personal distribution of institutional experience among deputies.
This third aspect is especially notable in comparing preserved and newly created committees. A substantial portion of experienced chairs preserved their areas, while simultaneously several deputies moved to new specialized positions, and a number of organizational functions acquired independent institutional form.
Conclusion
Overall, the studied analytical sources permit registration of several processes simultaneously, to which researchers in Russia and in other countries drew attention: preservation of key parliamentary leadership, reproduction of a substantial portion of the experienced committee leadership corps, redistribution of individual specialized positions between factions, creation of new specialized structures, and the inclusion of new personnel in the already existing parliamentary-party system.
Thus, in the available aggregate of materials, the formation of the Duma of the ninth convocation appears as a combination of institutional continuity and limited, but structurally notable, personnel and organizational renewal.