Democracy and Institutional Political Subjectness: Comparative Study for Europe and Central Asia

Nataliia Natalina
{"title":"Democracy and Institutional Political Subjectness: Comparative Study for Europe and Central Asia","authors":"Nataliia Natalina","doi":"10.14746/pp.2022.27.3.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of a comparative analysis of political institutions in different types of regimes through indicators of their political subjectness, namely governance effectiveness, government’s future orientation and institutional trust. The correlation between these indicators and the level of democratisation for 50 countries in Europe and Central Asia as of 2021 and in the dynamics of the last 15 years is calculated on the basis of a broad empirical database. The influence of new world order trends, such as the development of a network society, the digitalisation of the political field and the influence of international financial institutions, on institutional political subjectness is explored. The author concludes that consolidated democracies and autocracies have a higher level of political subjectness than hybrid regimes. Democracies are more effective in governance, but autocracies are more perceived by their citizens as capable of providing political stability and a long-term vision for the future. As a result, autocratic regimes have a higher dynamic of institutional trust. Hybrid regimes demonstrate a greater propensity for authoritarian political institutions and traditions than for democratic ones.","PeriodicalId":52588,"journal":{"name":"Przeglad Politologiczny","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przeglad Politologiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2022.27.3.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article presents the results of a comparative analysis of political institutions in different types of regimes through indicators of their political subjectness, namely governance effectiveness, government’s future orientation and institutional trust. The correlation between these indicators and the level of democratisation for 50 countries in Europe and Central Asia as of 2021 and in the dynamics of the last 15 years is calculated on the basis of a broad empirical database. The influence of new world order trends, such as the development of a network society, the digitalisation of the political field and the influence of international financial institutions, on institutional political subjectness is explored. The author concludes that consolidated democracies and autocracies have a higher level of political subjectness than hybrid regimes. Democracies are more effective in governance, but autocracies are more perceived by their citizens as capable of providing political stability and a long-term vision for the future. As a result, autocratic regimes have a higher dynamic of institutional trust. Hybrid regimes demonstrate a greater propensity for authoritarian political institutions and traditions than for democratic ones.
民主与制度政治主体性:欧洲与中亚的比较研究
本文通过治理效能、政府未来取向和制度信任等政治主体性指标,对不同类型政体下的政治制度进行了比较分析。这些指标与欧洲和中亚50个国家截至2021年的民主化水平之间的相关性以及过去15年的动态是在一个广泛的经验数据库的基础上计算出来的。探讨了网络社会的发展、政治领域的数字化和国际金融机构的影响等世界新秩序趋势对制度政治主体性的影响。作者的结论是,巩固的民主政体和独裁政体比混合型政体具有更高的政治主体性。民主国家在治理方面更有效,但专制国家在公民看来更有能力提供政治稳定和对未来的长远规划。因此,专制政权拥有更高的制度信任动力。与民主政体相比,混合政体更倾向于专制政治制度和传统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信