{"title":"To the Evaluation of Trajectories of Transformations of Post-Soviet Political Systems","authors":"Andrei Abramov, Roman Alekseev","doi":"10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The article examines the formation and development of political systems in the former eleven republics of the USSR from the standpoint of the institutional transformations taking place there. The struggle for power between various elite groups and citizens’ identities and the dynamics of citizens’ identities were also the basis for comparison. The authors consider the parameters mentioned to make the comparison and typology of the modern post-Soviet states’ development more effective. Methods and Materials. The neoinstitutional, sociological, and political-cultural approaches were used in the research, as were the comparative-historical and comparative-typological methods, which made it possible to scrutinize the available facts and draw respective conclusions. Analysis. It was stated that starting in the 1980s, the transformation of the typical Soviet republics took place in two directions. The first included the formation of the electoral autocracies, institutional design, and social and cultural image, which were determined by the “nucleus” – the president-leader. Such political dynamics turned out to be characteristic of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Belarus. The formation of the “front-end democracies” was the second direction. These democracies are characterized by institutional, social, and identity fragmentation hiding behind the glass cases of democratic structures and practices borrowed from the West. Kirghizia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, and Moldavia have moved in this direction. Results. The authors’ conclusion is that both the first and second directions do not ensure the stable development of new independent states in the foreseeable future. Authors’ contribution. A.V. Abramov formulated the concept of the article, developed the comparison parameters, and studied the post-Soviet elites’ and citizens’ struggle for power and their identity evolution. R.A. Alekseev analyzed the transformation of the political institutions in the post-Soviet political systems in the context of their constitutional reforms.","PeriodicalId":42917,"journal":{"name":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.3.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction. The article examines the formation and development of political systems in the former eleven republics of the USSR from the standpoint of the institutional transformations taking place there. The struggle for power between various elite groups and citizens’ identities and the dynamics of citizens’ identities were also the basis for comparison. The authors consider the parameters mentioned to make the comparison and typology of the modern post-Soviet states’ development more effective. Methods and Materials. The neoinstitutional, sociological, and political-cultural approaches were used in the research, as were the comparative-historical and comparative-typological methods, which made it possible to scrutinize the available facts and draw respective conclusions. Analysis. It was stated that starting in the 1980s, the transformation of the typical Soviet republics took place in two directions. The first included the formation of the electoral autocracies, institutional design, and social and cultural image, which were determined by the “nucleus” – the president-leader. Such political dynamics turned out to be characteristic of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Belarus. The formation of the “front-end democracies” was the second direction. These democracies are characterized by institutional, social, and identity fragmentation hiding behind the glass cases of democratic structures and practices borrowed from the West. Kirghizia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, and Moldavia have moved in this direction. Results. The authors’ conclusion is that both the first and second directions do not ensure the stable development of new independent states in the foreseeable future. Authors’ contribution. A.V. Abramov formulated the concept of the article, developed the comparison parameters, and studied the post-Soviet elites’ and citizens’ struggle for power and their identity evolution. R.A. Alekseev analyzed the transformation of the political institutions in the post-Soviet political systems in the context of their constitutional reforms.