Abstract
Some 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, most successor states are ruled by non-democratic regimes. This chapter explores why this is so. After looking at some arguments about culture, the chapter turns to an argument about the circumstances of these countries’ emergence from the USSR, and especially the role of mass-based civil society forces in that process. Most of the post-Soviet countries experienced an overwhelmingly elite-based transition in which the populace played only a subsidiary part. The result was the creation of political systems that were semi-closed, in the sense of providing little scope for real popular participation. Politics was overwhelmingly an elite phenomenon, and those elites acted to maintain the semi-closed nature of their polities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This chapter is only concerned with the 15 former union republics of the USSR and does not include those statelets that have emerged as a result of frozen conflicts, North Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transdnistr.
- 2.
A regime is defined as the set of rules that govern access to power in the political system.
- 3.
- 4.
This is a more general argument about the effect of authoritarian parties in mitigating elite conflict and bringing about unity. For an extended analysis, see Brownlee (2007).
- 5.
Although, he does acknowledge some failures in this initially: Gamsakhurdia in Georgia, Elchibey in Azerbaijan, Nabiev in Tajikistan and Kravchuk in Ukraine (Hale 2015, pp. 127–133).
Bibliography
Berdyaev, N. (1948). The Russian idea. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Billington, J. H. (1966). The icon and the axe. An interpretive history of Russian culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bremmer, I., & Taras, R. (Eds.) (1997). New politics. Building the post-Soviet nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunce, V. J., & Wolchik, S. L. (2011), Defeating authoritarian leaders in post-communist countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawisha, K., & Parrott, B. (Eds.) (1997a). Conflict, cleavage and change in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawisha, K., & Parrott, B. (Eds.) (1997b). Democratic changes and authoritarian reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, L. J. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.
Dicks, H. V. (1960). Some notes on the Russian national character. In: C. E. Black (Ed.), The transformation of Russian society (pp. 558–573). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gill, G. (2002). Democracy and post-communism. Political change in the post-communist world. London: Routledge.
Gill, G. (2015). Building an authoritarian polity. Russia in post-Soviet times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gorer, G., & Rickman, J. (1949). The people of Great Russia. A psychological study. London: The Cresset Press.
Hahn, G. (2002). Russia’s revolution from above. Reform, transition and revolution in the fall of the Soviet communist regime 1985–2000. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hale, H. E. (2015). Patronal politics. Eurasian regime dynamics in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://freedomhouse.org (accessed 27 October 2015).
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Comparative authoritarianism. Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lukin, A. (2000). Political culture of Russian democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McAuley, M. (1984). Political culture and communist studies: one step forward, two steps back. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Political culture and communist studies (pp. 13–39). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
McMann, K. M. (2006). Economic autonomy and democracy. Hybrid regimes in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mead, M. (1955). Soviet attitudes toward authority. An introductory approach to problems of Soviet character. New York: William Morrow.
Pipes, R. (1974). Russia under the old regime. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Smith, G. (1999). The post-Soviet states. Mapping the politics of transition. London: Arnold.
Szamuely, T. (1974). The Russian tradition. London: Secker & Warburg.
Way, L. A. (2005) Authoritarian state building and the sources of regime competitiveness in the fourth wave. The cases of Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. World Politics, 57(2), 231–261.
Way, L. (2010). Resistance to contagion: Sources of authoritarian stability in the former Soviet Union. In: V. Bunce, M. McFaul, K. Stoner-Weiss (Eds.), Democracy and authoritarianism in the post-communist world (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Way, L. A., & Levitsky, S. (2006). The dynamics of autocratic coercion after the cold war. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39(3), 387–410.
White, S. (1979). Political culture and Soviet politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gill, G. (2017). Chapter 3: Trajectories of Political Development in the Post-Soviet States. In: Fish, M., Gill, G., Petrovic, M. (eds) A Quarter Century of Post-Communism Assessed. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43437-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43437-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43436-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43437-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)