The five shades of grey: party systems and authoritarian institutions in post-Soviet Central Asian states

References

• Alkan, H. 2009. “Post-Soviet Politics in Kyrgyzstan: Between Centralism and Localism?” Contemporary Politics 15 (3): 355–375.
   Google Scholar
• Allworth, E., ed. 1994. Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amorim Neto, O., and G. W. Cox. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M. 2009. “Understanding Party Politics in the Former Soviet Union: Authoritarianism, Volatility, and Incentive Structures.” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 17 (2): 100–121.
   Google Scholar
• Bader, M. 2011. “Hegemonic Political Parties in Post-Soviet Eurasia: Towards Party-Based Authoritarianism?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44 (3): 189–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bairett, R. L. 2015. “Executive Power and Media Freedom in Central and Eastern Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (10): 1260–1292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaards, M., M. Basedau, and C. Hartmann. 2010. “Ethnic Party Bans in Africa: An Introduction.” Democratization 17 (4): 599–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownlee, J. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bunce, V. 1999. Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bunce, V., and S. L. Wolchik. 2010. “Defeating Dictators: Electoral Change and Stability in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes.” World Politics 62 (1): 43–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, W. R., and M. Golder. 2006. “Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws.” Comparative Political Studies 39 (6): 679–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cranenburgh, O. v. 2008. “‘Big Men’ Rule: Presidential Power, Regime Type and Democracy in 30 African Countries.” Democratization 15 (5): 952–973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, S. 2005. Kazakhstan: Power and the Elite. London: I B Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Daadaoui, M. 2010. “Rituals of Power and Political Parties in Morocco: Limited Elections as Positional Strategies.” Middle Eastern Studies 46 (2): 195–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dave, B. 2007. Kazakhstan: Ethnicity, Language and Power. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Del Sordi, Adele. 2016. “Legitimation and the Party of Power in Kazakhstan.” In Politics and Legitimacy in Post-Soviet Eurasia, edited by M. Brusis, J. Ahrens, and M. S. Wessel, 72–96. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz-Cayeros, A., and B. Magaloni. 2001. “Party Dominance and the Logic of Electoral Design in Mexico’s Transition to Democracy.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (3): 271–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, D., and R. Elgie. 2016. “Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 731–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudoignon, S. 1997. “Political Parties and Forces in Tajikistan, 1989–1993.” In Tajikistan: The Trails of Independence, edited by M.-R. Djalili, F. Grare, and S. Akiner, 52–87. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duverger, M. 1980. “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government.” European Journal of Political Research 8 (2): 165–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgie, R. 2007. “Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and Their Impact on Nascent Democracies.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 3 (2): 53–71.
   Google Scholar
• Elgie, R. 2010. “Semi-presidentialism, Cohabitation and the Collapse of Electoral Democracies, 1990–2008.” Government and Opposition 45 (1): 29–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgie, R. 2011. Semi-presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elgie, R., and S. Moestrup, eds. 2016. Semi-presidentialism in the Caucasus and Central Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, M. S. 2000. “The Executive Deception: Super-Presidentialism and the Degradation of Russian Politics.” In Building the Russian State: Institutional Crisis and the Quest for Democratic Governance, edited by V. Sperling, 177–192. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fortin, J. 2013. “Measuring Presidential Powers: Some Pitfalls of Aggregate Measurement.” International Political Science Review 34 (1): 91–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedom House. 2017. Freedom in the World. Accessed July 20, 2017. https://freedomhouse.org.
   Google Scholar
• Fumagalli, M. 2007. “Informal Ethnopolitics and Local Authority Figures in Osh, Kyrgyzstan.” Ethnopolitics 6 (2): 211–233.
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi, J., and E. Lust-Okar. 2009. “Elections Under Authoritarianism.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 403–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandhi, J., and A. Przeworski. 2006. “Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion Under Dictatorships.” Economics and Politics 18 (1): 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi, J., and A. Przeworski. 2007. “Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (11): 1279–1301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geddes, B. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg, T., Z. Elkins, and J. Melton. 2014. “The Content of Authoritarian Constitutions.” In Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes, edited by T. Ginsburg, and A. Simpser, 141–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2010. “The Effective Number of Parties: A New Approach.” Party Politics 16 (2): 171–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2011. “Party System Classification: A Methodological Inquiry.” Party Politics 17 (5): 539–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2013. “Authoritarian Party Systems: Patterns of Emergence, Sustainability and Survival.” Comparative Sociology 12 (5): 617–644.
   Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2014. “The Territorial Genealogies of Russia’s Political Parties and the Transferability of Political Machines.” Post-Soviet Affairs 30 (6): 464–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2015. “Factors of Party System Fragmentation: A Cross-National Study.” Australian Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 42–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2016. “Why and How Electoral Systems Matter in Autocracies?” Australian Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 367–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V. 2017. “Authoritarian Learning in the Development of Russia’s Electoral System.” Russian Politics 2 (2): 182–205.
   Google Scholar
• Golosov, G. V., and K. Kalinin. 2017. “Presidentialism and Legislative Fragmentation: Beyond Coattail Effects.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19 (1): 113–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodsky, B. 2007. “Resource Dependency and Political Opportunity: Explaining the Transformation from Excluded Political Opposition Parties to Human Rights Organizations in Post-Communist Uzbekistan.” Government and Opposition 42 (1): 96–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicken, A., and H. Stoll. 2008. “Electoral Rules and the Size of the Prize: How Political Institutions Shape Presidential Party Systems.” Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1109–1127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huskey, E., and D. Hill. 2013. “Regionalism, Personalism, Ethnicity, and Violence: Parties and Voter Preference in the 2010 Parliamentary Election in Kyrgyzstan.” Post-Soviet Affairs 29 (3): 237–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huskey, E., and G. Iskakova. 2010. “The Barriers to Intra-Opposition Cooperation in the Post-Communist World: Evidence From Kyrgyzstan.” Post-Soviet Affairs 26 (3): 228–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2017. PARLINE Database on National Parliaments. Accessed July 15, 2017. http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, R. 2011. Party System Formation in Kazakhstan: Between Formal and Informal Politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, R. 2013. “Nur Otan, Informal Networks and the Countering of Elite Instability in Kazakhstan: Bringing the ‘Formal’ Back.” Europe-Asia Studies 65 (6): 1055–1079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishiyama, J. T. 2008. “Political Party Development and Party ‘Gravity’ in Semi-Authoritarian States: The Cases of Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 4 (1): 33–53.
   Google Scholar
• Ishiyama, J. T., and R. Kennedy. 2001. “Super-presidentialism and Political Party Development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.” Europe-Asia Studies 53 (8): 1177–1191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, N. M., E. Malesky, and S. Weymouth. 2014. “Unbundling the Relationship Between Authoritarian Legislatures and Political Risk.” British Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 655–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juraev, S. 2008. “Kyrgyz Democracy? The Tulip Revolution and Beyond.” Central Asian Survey 27 (3-4): 253–264.
   Google Scholar
• Koldys, G. 1997. “Constraining Democratic Development: Institutions and Party System Formation in Kyrgyzstan.” Demokratizatsiya 5 (3): 351–375.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M., and R. Taagepera. 1979. “‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. W. Y. 1999. “Governing Post-Colonial Hong Kong: Institutional Incongruity, Governance Crisis, and Authoritarianism.” Asian Survey 39 (6): 940–959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lust-Okar, E. 2006. “Elections Under Authoritarianism: Preliminary Lessons from Jordan.” Democratization 13 (3): 456–471.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, D. 2001. “The Tajik Civil War and Peace Process.” Civil Wars 4 (4): 49–72.
   Google Scholar
• Magaloni, B. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Magaloni, B., and R. Kricheli. 2010. “Political Order and One-Party Rule.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 123–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, S. 1993. “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.” Comparative Political Studies 26 (2): 198–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marat, E. 2012. “Kyrgyzstan: A Parliamentary System Based on Inter-Elite Consensus.” Demokratizatsiya 20 (4): 325–344.
   Google Scholar
• March, A. F. 2003. “From Leninism to Karimovism: Hegemony, Ideology, and Authoritarian Legitimation.” Post-Soviet Affairs 19 (4): 307–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCargo, D. 2005. “Network Monarchy and Legitimacy Crises in Thailand.” Pacific Review 18 (4): 499–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalf, L. K. 2000. “Measuring Presidential Power.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (5): 660–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mietzner, M. 2018. “Authoritarian Elections, State Capacity, and Performance Legitimacy: Phases of Regime Consolidation and Decline in Suharto’s Indonesia.” International Political Science Review 39 (1): 83–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116687139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, S. 2017. The Constitutional Systems of the Independent Central Asian States: A Contextual Analysis. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Nissman, D. 1994. “Turkmenistan (Un)Transformed.” Current History 93 (582): 183–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohlen, D., F. Grotz, and C. Hartmann. 2001. Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook. Volume I: Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. 2013. “The New Research Agenda Studying Electoral Integrity.” Electoral Studies 32 (4): 563–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omelicheva, M. Y. 2016. “Authoritarian Legitimation: Assessing Discourses of Legitimacy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.” Central Asian Survey 35 (4): 481–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ordeshook, P. C., and O. V. Shvetsova. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 100–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peimani, H. 2009. Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
   Google Scholar
• Polese, A., D. Ó Beacháin, and S. Horák. 2017. “Strategies of Legitimation in Central Asia: Regime Durability in Turkmenistan.” Contemporary Politics 23 (4): 427–445. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.133139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pravitel’stvo Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki. 2017. Konstitutsiya Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki. Accessed July 20, 2017. http://www.gov.kg/?page_id=263&lang=ru.
   Google Scholar
• Presidential Power. 2017. Prespow2 Scores. Accessed July 10, 2017. http://presidential-power.com.
   Google Scholar
• Pripstein Posusney, M. 2002. “Multi-party Elections in the Arab World: Institutional Engineering and Oppositional Strategies.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (4): 34–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Protsyk, O. 2003. “Troubled Semi-Presidentialism: Stability of the Constitutional System and Cabinet in Ukraine.” Europe-Asia Studies 55 (7): 1077–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae, D. W. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reuter, O. J., and T. F. Remington. 2009. “Dominant Party Regimes and the Commitment Problem: The Case of United Russia.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (4): 501–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, S. P. 2015. “Converging Party Systems in Russia and Central Asia: A Case of Authoritarian Norm Diffusion?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 48 (2-3): 147–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryabkov, M. 2008. “The North-South Cleavage and Political Support in Kyrgyzstan.” Central Asian Survey 27 (3-4): 301–316.
   Google Scholar
• Sadiki, L. 2002. “The Search for Citizenship in Bin Ali’s Tunisia: Democracy Versus Unity.” Political Studies 50 (3): 497–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satpaev, D. A. 2007. “An Analysis of the Internal Structure of Kazakhstan’s Political Elite and an Assessment of Political Risk Levels.” In Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia, edited by U. Tomohiko, 283–300. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Schatz, E., and E. Maltseva. 2012. “Kazakhstan’s Authoritarian ‘Persuasion’.” Post-Soviet Affairs 28 (1): 45–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirazi, H. A. 1997. “Political Forces and Their Structures in Tajikistan.” Central Asian Survey 16 (4): 611–622.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, M. S. 2005. “Semi-presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns.” French Politics 3 (3): 323–351.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, M. S., and J. M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siaroff, A. 2000. Comparative European Party Systems: An Analysis of Parliamentary Elections Since 1945. New York and London: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Sirojjon, B. 2015. “Multiparty System in Uzbekistan, 1985-2014.” Himalayan and Central Asian Studies 9 (3-4): 150–157.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B. B. 2005. “Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence Under Single-Party Rule.” World Politics 57 (3): 421–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taagepera, R., and M. S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• White, S., and O. Kryshtanovskaya. 2011. “Changing the Russian Electoral System: Inside the Black Box.” Europe-Asia Studies 63 (4): 557–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar