Post-Soviet Authoritarianism

ABSTRACT

This article examines the problems of the rise and consolidation of authoritarian regimes in former Soviet countries. The authors analyze the reasons why the transition to democracy failed in these newly independent states, including the absence of a strong tradition of civil society and the fact that the anti-communist revolution that took place in the Soviet Union in 1991 was not preceded by a “revolution of values.” An important reason for the suspension of transitions to democracy was that the new ruling elite, which held a monopoly on power and property in former Soviet countries, had no interest in further market and democratic reforms. In their analysis of reasons for the stability of authoritarian regimes, the authors focus mainly on factors like the roles of the institution of power-property, of the nomenklatura as the ruling class, and of the patronage state. At the same time, this article looks at factors that could limit the development of authoritarian regimes in the former Soviet Union; these factors include competing political identities in society, the balance of power between regional elites, and the de-nomenklaturization of the political elite. The authors note that the main problem on the path of the transition to democracy is the absence of political and social actors interested in such changes.

KEYWORDS:

• authoritarianism
• former Soviet Union
• institution (power-property)
• neo-authoritarianism
• “neo-patrimonial state”
• nomenklatura

This article is the republished version of:

Post-Soviet Authoritarianism

Notes

English translation © 2019 Taylor & Francis, LLC, from the Russian text © 2017 “Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’.” “Postsovetskii avtoritarizm,” Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, 2017, no. 4, pp. 84–97.

Yuliy Nisnevich is a doctor of political sciences and professor in the Department of Political Science, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Andrey Ryabov is a doctor of historical sciences and lead researcher at Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO RAS).

Notes have been renumbered for this edition.—Ed.

Translated by Lucy Gunderson. Translation reprinted from Sociological Research, vol. 58, nos. 1-2. DOI:10.1080/10610154.2019.1688994.

1. This article does not look at the Baltic countries—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Even though they are former Soviet states in origin, unlike other newly independent states that formed on the territory of the former Soviet Union, upon gaining independence, they set a course of integration with Euro-Atlantic institutions, which required them to carry out sweeping democratic and market reforms. The current functioning of political institutions in the Baltic states, which became European Union (EU) members in 2005, is regulated to a significant extent by the democratic rules and norms adopted by this organization, and this is what separates them from other former Soviet countries.

2. Petrosyan resigned in 1998; he was not defeated in a presidential election in 1998.—Trans.

3. The transition to a parliamentary form of government was approved in a referendum of December 2015. The coming years will show what effect this will have on the political regime. We are using data on this country’s political system prior to the transition to a different form of government.

4. Several cotemporary studies view these relationships as the chief unique aspect of post-Soviet political regimes (Hale, 2015).