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).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Freedom House, Nations in Transit (1998–2004). Available at http://freedomhouse.org/research/nattransit.htm.
See D. Collier and S. Levitsky, ‘Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research’, World Politics, 49 (1997), p. 430.
R. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1956).
T. Carothers, ‘The Rule of Law Revival’, Foreign Affairs, 77 (2) (1998), p. 96.
See R. Dahl, Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 2.
J. Donnelly, ‘Human Rights, Democracy and Development’, Human Rights Quarterly, 21 (1999), pp. 608, 620.
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.
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.
G. O’Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 5 (1994), p. 61.
See, for example, L. Diamond, ‘Toward Democratic Consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 5 (1994), p. 4.
J. S. Nye, ‘Corruption and Political Development: a Cost-Benefit Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 61 (1967), p. 421.
K. Simis, ‘The Machinery of Corruption in the Soviet Union’, Survey, 22 (1977), pp. 46, 55.
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.
F. J. M. Feldbrugge, ‘Government and Shadow Economy’, Soviet Studies, 36 (1984), p. 532.
K. Simis, USSR: the Corrupt Society (New York: Simon` & Schuster, 1982), p. 55.
Supra note 18 at p. 42. M. Voslensky, Nomenklatura: the Soviet Ruling Class (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), p. 188.
J. Tarkowski, ‘Old and New Patterns of Corruption in Poland and the USSR’, Telos, 80 (1989), p. 54.
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.
I. Bremmer and C. Welt, ‘Armenia’s New Autocrats’, Journal of Democracy, 8 (1997), p. 83.
Georgian Corruption Research Centre (in collaboration with UNDP), Investigation of Corruption Problems in Georgia (Tbilisi, Georgia, 1998);
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).
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.
J. Scott, Comparative Political Corruption (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972), p. 508.
S. M. Fish, Democracy from Scratch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
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.
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.
M. Ottaway, Democracy Challenged: the Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003), p. 61.
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).
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230506015_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51874-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50601-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)