Advertisement

Ukraine Under Kuchma—An Illustration of the Link Between the Extended Parentela and Consolidated Oligarchy

  • Mihail Petkov
Chapter

Abstract

The previous chapter focused on the development of the extended parentela as a model of oligarchic dynamics in Bulgaria. It ended with the hypothesis that if the extended parentela dynamic is left unchecked and in combination with parliamentary elections, the internal state-group dynamics can transform into a consolidated oligarchy. What is meant with this term is not that the Bulgarian state will formally become an oligarchy. Rather, that the competition among elites will cease and they will solidify into a single, coherent elitist community: either because there will be only one party, or because all parties will decide to govern together. In any case, there is the question whether all of the above is valid because it was developed on a high level of abstraction. Is it applicable to a case outside Bulgaria, or is it purely a Bulgarian phenomenon? To answer this question, the present chapter focuses on the secondary literature produced by area experts on Ukraine specifically under President Kuchma’s tenure. The objective is to find traces of the extended parentela model and the hypothesized causal dynamic: the extended parentela, suppression of political competition and evidence of oligarchic consolidation. The present chapter argues that we can find all of these elements in the Ukrainian case and therefore the extended parentela model is at least tentatively validated.

References

  1. Aslund, A. (2003). Left Behind: Ukraine’s Uncertain Transformation. The National Interest, No. 73 (Fall), 107–116.Google Scholar
  2. Chalakov, I., Bundzhulov, A., Hristov, I., Deyanova, L., Nikolova, N., Deyanov, D., et al. (2008). The Networks of Transition—What Actually Happened in Bulgaria After 1989? Sofia: East-West [Чaлъкoв, Ив., Бyнджyлoв, A., Xpиcтoв, И., Дeянoвa, Л., Hикoлoвa, H., Дeянoв, Д., Mитeв, T., Cлaвeнкoв, Б., Cимeoнoв, O., Чипeв, П., Cтoйнeв, B., Фeлиcи, Cт. (2008). Mpeжитe нa пpexoдa – Кaквo ce cлyчи вcъщнocт в Бългapия cлeд 1989. Coфия: Изтoк-Зaпaд].Google Scholar
  3. Darden, K. (2008). The Integrity of Corrupt States: Graft as an Informal State Institution. Politics and Society, 36(1), 35–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329207312183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erdmann, G., & Engel, U. (2007). Neopatrimonialism Reconsidered: Critical Review and Elaboration of an Elusive Concept. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45(1), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 564–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jordan, G. (1990). The Pluralism of Pluralism: An Anti-Theory?. Political Studies, 38(2), 286–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klein, M. (2012). Presidents, Oligarchs and Bureaucrats: Forms of Rule in the Post-Soviet Space. Farnham: Ashgate (Kindle Edition). Google Scholar
  8. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2002). The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Kindle Edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mallet-Prevost, S. (1933). United States-Democracy or Oligarchy? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 169, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Puglisi, R. (2003). The Rise of the Ukrainian Oligarchs. Democratization, 10(3), 99–123.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340312331293947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Winters, J. A., & Page, B. I. (2009). Oligarchy in the United States? Perspectives on Politics, 7(4), 731–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihail Petkov
    • 1
  1. 1.NaplesUSA

Personalised recommendations