Skip to main content

Clash of Institutions: Clientelism and Corruption vs. Rule of Law

  • Chapter
Book cover The State of Law in the South Caucasus

Part of the book series: Euro-Asian Studies ((EAS))

Abstract

Fifteen years after the fall of Soviet rule, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia remain plain examples of post-authoritarian transitions that have gone awry. There are differences between these three countries in terms of their political and economic developments. Freedom House, for example, has consistently ranked Armenia and Georgia above Azerbaijan in terms of economic liberalization and political democratization.1 Moreover, Georgia certainly fares better than Armenia in terms of democratic development, taking into account that Georgia recently witnessed the rise of a young and reformist elite to political power (winter 2003). In contrast, Armenia appears to be stuck with a government that does not tolerate any opposition to its rule, as the brutal crackdown of a recent attempt at replicating Georgia’s ‘Rose Revolution’ has clearly demonstrated (spring 2004).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Freedom House, Nations in Transit (1998–2004). Available at http://freedomhouse.org/research/nattransit.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See D. Collier and S. Levitsky, ‘Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research’, World Politics, 49 (1997), p. 430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1956).

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Carothers, ‘The Rule of Law Revival’, Foreign Affairs, 77 (2) (1998), p. 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. See R. Dahl, Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Donnelly, ‘Human Rights, Democracy and Development’, Human Rights Quarterly, 21 (1999), pp. 608, 620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. J. R. Reitz, ‘Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law: Theoretical Perspectives’, in R. D. Grey, ed., Democratic Theory and Post-Communist Change (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997), p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Holmes, ‘Cultural Legacies or State Collapse? Probing the Postcommunist Dilemma’, in M. Mandelbaum, ed., Postcommunism: Four Perspectives (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1996), p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  9. G. O’Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 5 (1994), p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See, for example, L. Diamond, ‘Toward Democratic Consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 5 (1994), p. 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J. S. Nye, ‘Corruption and Political Development: a Cost-Benefit Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 61 (1967), p. 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. K. Simis, ‘The Machinery of Corruption in the Soviet Union’, Survey, 22 (1977), pp. 46, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Scott, ‘Patron–Client Politics and Political Changes in Southeast Asia’, in S. Schmidt et al., eds, Friends, Followers, and Factions: a Reader in Political Clientelism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. J. M. Feldbrugge, ‘Government and Shadow Economy’, Soviet Studies, 36 (1984), p. 532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Simis, USSR: the Corrupt Society (New York: Simon` & Schuster, 1982), p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Supra note 18 at p. 42. M. Voslensky, Nomenklatura: the Soviet Ruling Class (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Tarkowski, ‘Old and New Patterns of Corruption in Poland and the USSR’, Telos, 80 (1989), p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Vorozheikina, ‘Clientelism and the Process of Political Democratization in Russia’, in L. Roniger and A. Günes-Ayata, eds, Democracy, Clientelism, and Civil Society (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994), p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  19. I. Bremmer and C. Welt, ‘Armenia’s New Autocrats’, Journal of Democracy, 8 (1997), p. 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Georgian Corruption Research Centre (in collaboration with UNDP), Investigation of Corruption Problems in Georgia (Tbilisi, Georgia, 1998);

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Aghumian, Corruption in Transitional States: Political, Economic, Legal and Cultural Dimensions. Case Study of Armenia (Yerevan: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  22. US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Georgia (1999). Available at http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1999_hrp_report/georgia.htm. Human Rights Watch, ‘Letter to Mr. Kakhaber Targamadze, Minister of Internal Affairs, and Procurator General Hamlet Babilashvili from May 11, 1998’, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Scott, Comparative Political Corruption (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972), p. 508.

    Google Scholar 

  24. S. M. Fish, Democracy from Scratch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  25. I. Bremmer, ‘Post-Soviet Nationalities Theory: Past, Present, and Future’, in I. Bremmer and R. Taras, eds, New States, New Politics: Building the Post-Soviet Nations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Devdariani, ‘Georgia’s New Ministers of Interior, State Security Grapple with the Legacy of Mistrust’, in Eurasia Insight (28 November 2001). Available at http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav112801a.shtml.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Ottaway, Democracy Challenged: the Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003), p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  28. For an extensive analysis of the Georgian system of corruption under Shevardnadze, see C. H. Stefes, ‘The Incompatibilities of Institutionalized Corruption and Democracy in the Former Soviet Union: the Case of Georgia’ (PhD diss., University of Denver, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2005 Christoph H. Stefes

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stefes, C.H. (2005). Clash of Institutions: Clientelism and Corruption vs. Rule of Law. In: Waters, C.P.M. (eds) The State of Law in the South Caucasus. Euro-Asian Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230506015_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics