Regime transition, uncertainty and prospects for democratization: The politics for Russia's regions in a comparative perspective

In analyzing regime transition as an open-ended process, the paradigmatic approach of the paper provides an alternative to teleological schemes of the transition to democracy. The process of regime transition, regardless of the regime type itself, includes several stages, such as the breakdown of the ancient regime, the uncertainty of the political regime, and the installation of the new regime. The key characteristics of the uncertainty stage are the uncertain position of actors and the institution-free environment. The completion of this stage is the installation of the new regime. Looking at some of Russia’s regions as case studies of regime transition, the paper aims at understanding scenarios of outcomes of uncertainty and their impact on new political regimes. The “winner takes all” scenario of outcome of uncertainty is likely to enhance the power monopoly of the dominant actor and the supremacy of informal institutions. The consequences of this scenario are the emergence of new political regimes with numerous aspects of authoritarian rule. These regimes could be relatively stable. The “elite settlement” scenario of outcome of uncertainty generally includes the sharing of powers between dominant and subordinate actors in order to limit public political contestation and establish the supremacy of informal, rather than formal, institutions. These regimes are fragile and dependent on changes in the political situation. The “struggle over the rules” scenario of outcome of uncertainty is likely to provide an institutional framework as a precondition to democratization in the sense of horizontal accountability through the institutional limitation on assertions of power. Until the institutionalization of the new regime, it still remains fragile. Democracy is not emerging from regime transition by default. Only if political competition among actors within the framework of formal institutions continues to develop, transitions to democracy may occur as a contingent outcome of conflict, or as the “lesser evil” for the actors. --

Regime transition, uncertainty and prospects for democratization: the politics of Russia's regions in a comparative perspective

"In analyzing regime transition as an open-ended process, the paradigmatic approach of the paper provides an alternative to teleological schemes of the 'transition to democracy'. The process of regime transition, regardless of the regime type itself, includes several stages, such as the breakdown of the ancient regime, the uncertainty of the political regime, and the Installation of the new regime. The key characteristics of the uncertainty stage are the uncertain position of actors and the institution-free environment. The completion of this stage is the installation of the new regime. Looking at some of Russia's regions as case studies of regime transition, the paper aims at understanding scenarios of outcomes of uncertainty and their impact an new political regimes. The "winner takes all" scenario of outcome of uncertainty. is likely to enhance the power monopoly of the dominant actor and the supremacy of informal institutions. The consequences of this scenario are the emergence of new political regimes with numerous aspects of authoritarian rule. These regimes could be relatively stable. The "elite settlement" scenario of outcome of uncertainty generally includes the sharing of powers between dominant and subordinate actors in order to limit public political contestation and establish the supremacy of informal, rather than formal, institutions. These regimes are fragile and dependent an changes in the political Situation. The 'struggle over the rules' scenario of outcome of uncertainty is likely to provide an institutional framework as a precondition to democratization in the sense of horizontal accountability through the institutional limitation an assertions of power. Until the institutionalization of the new regime, it still remains fragile. Democracy is not emerging from regime transition by default. Only if political competition among actors within the framework of formal institutions continues to develop, transitions to democracy may occur as a contingent outcome of conflict, or as the 'lesser evil' for the actors." (author's abstract)Der Autor versteht Regime-Übergang als einen offenen, im Ergebnis unbestimmten Prozeß. Sein paradigmatischer Ansatz bietet daher eine Alternative zu teleologischen Erklärungsmustern für den "Übergang zur Demokratie". Die Untersuchung richtet sich auf einige Regionen Rußlands als Fallstudien für Regime-Übergang und zielt darauf ab, verschiedene Szenarien für die Ergebnisse des Unsicherheitsstadiums und ihre Einflußwirkung auf neue politische Regime zu durchdenken. "Winner takes all" bezeichnet das Szenario, mit dem das Machtmonopol des Hauptakteurs und die Oberherrschaft informeller Institutionen verstärkt wird. Folgen sind die Herausbildung neuer politischer Regime mit zahlreichen Zügen autoritärer Herrschaft. Solche Regime können relativ große Stabilität entwickeln. "Elite settlement" bezeichnet eine Machtteilung zwischen vorherrschenden und untergeordneten Akteuren mit dem Ziel, öffentliche politische Infragestellung zu begrenzen und die Vorherrschaft von eher informellen Institutionen zu etablieren. Solche Regime sind oftmals fragil und abhängig von Veränderungen der politischen Lage. Schließlich bezeichnet "struggle over the rules" ein Szenario, das mit Wahrscheinlichkeit einen institutionellen Rahmen hervorbringt, der sich als Voraussetzung zur Demokratisierung im Sinne von horizontaler Verantwortlichkeit durch institutionelle Begrenzungen von Machtausübung eignet, aber bis zur Institutionalisierung des neuen Regimes durchaus fragil bleibt. Demokratie ergibt sich nicht zufällig aus der Art des Regime-Übergangs. Nur wenn sich zwischen den Akteuren innerhalb des Rahmens formeller Institutionen politischer Wettbewerb nachhaltig entwickelt, können sich Übergänge zur Demokratie als Resultat politischer Konflikte ergeben. (HH

The Politics of Bad Governance in Contemporary Russia

Peer reviewe

"Liberals" vs. "Democrats" : Ideational Trajectories of Russia's Post-Communist Transformation

Peer reviewe

Why Predictions Fail: Forecasting Russia's Future

Non peer reviewe

Authoritarian Modernization in Russia : Mission: Impossible?

This article analyses post-Soviet reforms in Russia, and treats them as an example of 'authoritarian modernization', which were implemented to achieve a high level of socioeconomic development by focusing on rapid economic growth while neglecting political democratization. It discusses the arguments in favour of authoritarian modernization as such, and the dilemmas, challenges, and constraints in its implementation which became evident during the period of 1990-2010s. A special emphasis is made on the poor quality of the Russian state against the background of its relatively low international integration. The rent-seeking nature of the state together with the formation and further entrenchment of an electorally authoritarian regime provide negative incentives for the implementation of authoritarian modernization. The article considers a number of contradictions associated with such a project in Russia, including some unintended consequences of the economic growth, including the growth of the demands for democratization, the disjuncture between ambitious policy reforms and their inept implementation by the state apparatus, and the 'mediocrity syndrome' resulting from unjustified claims of Russia's unique influence on the global scale. The article concludes that the features of Russia's current political and economic order impose insurmountably high barriers for the implementation of authoritarian modernization in terms of ideas, institutions, and policies, thereby exhausting the very potential of this project.Peer reviewe