Differing Dynamics of Semipresidentialism across Euro/Eurasian Borders: Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, and Armenia

Q2 Social Sciences
K. Matsuzato
{"title":"Differing Dynamics of Semipresidentialism across Euro/Eurasian Borders: Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, and Armenia","authors":"K. Matsuzato","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.3.317-346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The postcommunist countries that chose semipresidential regimes can be divided into three territorial units. First, the Commonwealth of Independent States countries chose semipresidentialism as a natural evolution of Communist executive diarchy and an instrument to run clientelist politics. New European Union countries (Poland and Lithuania) largely lacked these conditions but found other reasons for semipresidentialism: as a counterbalance against populist tendencies in postcommunist politics and as a mechanism to \"cultivate\" newcomers in politics. It is in the border regions between Eurasia and Europe (in this article Armenia and Moldova) where semipresidential regimes cannot consolidate and continue to experience constant constitutional instability. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine resulted in constitutional amendments that violated constitutional procedural requirements and thus provided another example that the apparent \"enlargement of Europe\" tends to destabilize constitutional processes. Key words: clientelism, EU expansion, institutional choice, Orange Revolution, postcommunist transition, semipresidentialism Introduction The collapse of Communist regimes provoked scholarly interest in semipresidentialism not only because the overwhelming majority of postcommunist countries chose this type of regime, (1) but also because the collapse of Communist regimes provided another source of semipresidential constitutional arrangements, namely, executive diarchies existing under Communist one-party regimes. As Maurice Duverger noted, semipresidentialism is somewhat similar to Soviet administrative law, in that executive power is divided into strategic and managerial functions. In the Soviet Union, these functions were run by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the government, respectively. (2) Moreover, when semipresidential regimes emerged, particularly in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, the political elite recognized that this regime fit the clientelistic characteristics of their countries' politics. Under semipresidentialism, the president enjoys abundant potential to manipulate elite clans by exploiting his prerogative to appoint and dismiss prime ministers. Thus, if a number of countries in various parts of the world consciously imported the 1962 French constitution, the evolution of Communist executive diarchies into semipresidential regimes would be an indigenous, natural process. (3) It is symptomatic that the term semipresidentialism entered the lexicon of the political and judicial sciences of postcommunist countries only after they adopted semipresidential constitutions. In a previous article on Ukrainian semipresidentialism, I described this typically Eurasian, natural development from Communist executive diarchy to postcommunist semipresidentialism. (4) Yet this was not the only possible scenario for postcommunist countries. It is true that the Communist method of dividing strategic and managerial functions of executive power affected constitutional debate, even in the western part of the former socialist countries, for example, in Poland. However, the revolutionary characteristics of the transition of western postcommunist countries did not allow for a smooth transition of Communist executive diarchy to semipresidentialism. As a result, there are a number of countries where the 1962 French constitution, another source of semipresidentialism, affected constitutional processes, at least temporarily. The semipresidential choices in these countries, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia (after 1998), cannot be attributed to either a Communist legacy or postcommunist clientalism. In a previous article I coauthored with Liutauras Gudzinskas, a Lithuanian political scientist, we explained Lithuania's semipresidential choice by the preference of the population for strongman rule and a concrete balance of power among the elites during the preparation of a semipresidential constitution. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"200 1","pages":"317-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.3.317-346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract: The postcommunist countries that chose semipresidential regimes can be divided into three territorial units. First, the Commonwealth of Independent States countries chose semipresidentialism as a natural evolution of Communist executive diarchy and an instrument to run clientelist politics. New European Union countries (Poland and Lithuania) largely lacked these conditions but found other reasons for semipresidentialism: as a counterbalance against populist tendencies in postcommunist politics and as a mechanism to "cultivate" newcomers in politics. It is in the border regions between Eurasia and Europe (in this article Armenia and Moldova) where semipresidential regimes cannot consolidate and continue to experience constant constitutional instability. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine resulted in constitutional amendments that violated constitutional procedural requirements and thus provided another example that the apparent "enlargement of Europe" tends to destabilize constitutional processes. Key words: clientelism, EU expansion, institutional choice, Orange Revolution, postcommunist transition, semipresidentialism Introduction The collapse of Communist regimes provoked scholarly interest in semipresidentialism not only because the overwhelming majority of postcommunist countries chose this type of regime, (1) but also because the collapse of Communist regimes provided another source of semipresidential constitutional arrangements, namely, executive diarchies existing under Communist one-party regimes. As Maurice Duverger noted, semipresidentialism is somewhat similar to Soviet administrative law, in that executive power is divided into strategic and managerial functions. In the Soviet Union, these functions were run by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the government, respectively. (2) Moreover, when semipresidential regimes emerged, particularly in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, the political elite recognized that this regime fit the clientelistic characteristics of their countries' politics. Under semipresidentialism, the president enjoys abundant potential to manipulate elite clans by exploiting his prerogative to appoint and dismiss prime ministers. Thus, if a number of countries in various parts of the world consciously imported the 1962 French constitution, the evolution of Communist executive diarchies into semipresidential regimes would be an indigenous, natural process. (3) It is symptomatic that the term semipresidentialism entered the lexicon of the political and judicial sciences of postcommunist countries only after they adopted semipresidential constitutions. In a previous article on Ukrainian semipresidentialism, I described this typically Eurasian, natural development from Communist executive diarchy to postcommunist semipresidentialism. (4) Yet this was not the only possible scenario for postcommunist countries. It is true that the Communist method of dividing strategic and managerial functions of executive power affected constitutional debate, even in the western part of the former socialist countries, for example, in Poland. However, the revolutionary characteristics of the transition of western postcommunist countries did not allow for a smooth transition of Communist executive diarchy to semipresidentialism. As a result, there are a number of countries where the 1962 French constitution, another source of semipresidentialism, affected constitutional processes, at least temporarily. The semipresidential choices in these countries, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia (after 1998), cannot be attributed to either a Communist legacy or postcommunist clientalism. In a previous article I coauthored with Liutauras Gudzinskas, a Lithuanian political scientist, we explained Lithuania's semipresidential choice by the preference of the population for strongman rule and a concrete balance of power among the elites during the preparation of a semipresidential constitution. …
跨欧洲/欧亚边界的半总统主义的不同动态:乌克兰、立陶宛、波兰、摩尔多瓦和亚美尼亚
摘要:选择半总统制的后共产主义国家可以划分为三个领土单元。首先,独联体国家选择了半总统制,这是共产主义行政阶层的自然演变,也是运行庇护主义政治的工具。新加入欧盟的国家(波兰和立陶宛)大多缺乏这些条件,但它们发现了半总统制的其他原因:作为对后共产主义政治中的民粹主义倾向的制衡,以及作为一种“培养”政治新人的机制。正是在欧亚大陆和欧洲之间的边界地区(本文中是亚美尼亚和摩尔多瓦),半总统制政权无法巩固,并继续经历不断的宪法不稳定。乌克兰的橙色革命导致了违反宪法程序要求的宪法修正案,从而提供了另一个明显的“欧洲扩大”倾向于破坏宪法进程稳定的例子。关键词:共产主义政权的崩溃引起了学术界对半总统制的兴趣,不仅因为绝大多数后共产主义国家选择了这种类型的政权,(1)而且因为共产主义政权的崩溃提供了半总统制宪法安排的另一个来源,即:一党专政下的行政机构。正如Maurice Duverger所指出的,半总统制在某种程度上类似于苏联的行政法,因为行政权力被分为战略和管理职能。在苏联,这些职能分别由共产党中央委员会和政府管理。(2)此外,当半总统制政权出现时,特别是在独立国家联合体(CIS)国家,政治精英认识到这种政权符合其国家政治的庇护主义特征。在半总统制下,总统利用其任命和解雇总理的特权,拥有操纵精英集团的巨大潜力。因此,如果世界各地的一些国家有意识地引进1962年的法国宪法,共产主义行政政权向半总统制政权的演变将是一个本土的、自然的过程。(3)“半总统制”一词进入后共产主义国家的政治学和法学词汇,是在这些国家采用半总统制宪法之后才出现的现象。在之前一篇关于乌克兰半总统制的文章中,我描述了这种典型的欧亚式的、从共产主义行政阶层到后共产主义半总统制的自然发展。然而,这并不是后共产主义国家唯一可能出现的情况。的确,共产党划分行政权力的战略和管理职能的方法影响了宪法辩论,甚至在前社会主义国家的西部,例如在波兰。然而,西方后共产主义国家转型的革命性特征并不允许共产主义行政阶层向半总统制的平稳过渡。因此,1962年的法国宪法(半总统制的另一个来源)至少暂时影响了许多国家的制宪进程。这些国家,立陶宛、波兰和斯洛伐克(1998年后)的半总统选举既不能归因于共产主义遗产,也不能归因于后共产主义的庇护主义。在我之前与立陶宛政治学家柳陶拉斯·古津斯卡斯(Liutauras Gudzinskas)合著的一篇文章中,我们解释了立陶宛的半总统制选择,因为在准备半总统制宪法的过程中,人们更倾向于强人统治,以及精英之间的具体权力平衡。…
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
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信