Towards Democratic Consolidation? Ukraine After the Revolution of Dignity (original) (raw)
Related papers
Overcoming the Authoritarian Legacy? Understanding Regime Change in Ukraine
Post-Soviet Politics Research Papers, 2020
The 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine is largely deemed to herald the end of the post-Cold War settlement, by reasserting Ukraine's determination in overstepping the "buffer zone" and gaining centrality in the European Union (EU)-led socio-political order. A question remains as to what extent the "choice for Europe" has shaped Ukraine's regime outputs, thus leading to country's transformation into a full-fledged democracy. The answer to this question involves explaining the post-Maidan dynamics of democratic consolidation, with a focus on its attitudinal, behavioral, and institutional dimensions. The study concludes that while broad democratic support is conducive to democratic consolidation, the latter involves overcoming the deep-rooted informality and 'culture of corruption'. Besides, reinforcing the institutional foundations of democratization is critical to ensuring its sustainability.
In the presented paper oligarchy is seen not as a transitional form of post-communist rule, a particular post-Soviet road from socialism to capitalism, from plan to market, and from autocracy to democracy but as a substantially different model of social organization and power, as a particular model of societal modernization. This system has its own resources, mechanisms of reproduction, and powerful social forces of support at both the level of formal institutions and informal everyday practices. First, I delineate two theoretical approaches – institutional theory, namely its path dependency version, and rational choice theory – combining them to achieve more adequate framework of analysis of the phenomenon at hand. Second, the essence of the oligarchic model is considered with a particular focus on how it is related to democracy and modernization processes. Third, the paper elucidates the dynamics of oligarchy as well as factors that conditioned its emergence and further reinforcement, emphasizing primarily the antecedent conditions. The issue of how the model of transformation employed by ruling classes predetermined the path of Ukrainian society to oligarchy is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion and referred to only sketchily.
The authors discuss the institutional changes proposed in Ukraine's constitutional framework and election laws that could fundamentally alter the separation of powers and the responsiveness of Ukrainian government to the electorate. We analyze the proposed institutional changes from the perspective of what they portend for Ukraine's democratic transition. Building on the most recent vein of democratization studies examining institutional factors affecting democratic stability, we emphasize that it cannot be assumed that Ukraine is ''in transition to democracy.'' We conclude that comprehending the likelihood of achieving democratic stability must be contextualized in an understanding of intervening factorsd political, economic, and historicaldthat ultimately influence democratic stability. Our analysis reminds government reform advocates that it is necessary to go beyond the basic institutional framework of proposed governmental changes in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of democratization.
Revolution without regime change: The evidence from the post-Euromaidan Ukraine
Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 2018
What effects does a revolution have on the stability or change of a hybrid regime? Has the Ukraine’s regime changed since the 2014 revolution? To answer these questions I examine the changes in formal and informal institutions and the quantitative and qualitative composition of elites after the change of power in Ukraine in 2014. I argue that despite greater than in the post-orange period quantitative renewal of elites, qualitative change has not occurred. Meanwhile, the old operational code, or modus operandi, of elites’ political culture, composed of clientelism, secretive deals and quota based nominations to government positions continues to operate. The lack of elites’ renewal and the dominance of informal rules over formal procedures — two factors that keep the institutional core of Ukraine’s hybrid regime unchanged.
Can Free Elections Secure Democratic Consolidation? An Analysis of Ukraine in 2006
Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags stehen die Ergebnisse der ukrainischen Parlamentswahlen von 2006. Sie spiegeln in mancherlei Hinsicht den Stand der demokratischen Entwicklung wider. Dieser Prozess kann jedoch nicht als ausschließliches Ergebnis der Präsidentschaft Juschtschenkos angesehen werden. Er ist vielmehr das Resultat von Entwicklungen, die mit der Erlangung der Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine einsetzten. Dies wird anhand des institutionellen, politischen und sozialen Wandels aufgezeigt.
Trapped in Hybridity: Ukraine’s Regime Transformations after the 2014 Revolution (in Russ.)
Has the Ukraine’s regime changed since the 2014 revolution? What effects does a revolution have on stability or change of a hybrid regime? To answer these questions the article deals with the changes in formal and informal institutions and the quantitative and qualitative composition of elites after the change of power in 2014. The author argues that despite the quantitative renewal of elites, greater in scope than in the “post-orange period”, there has been no qualitative renewal of elites. Meanwhile, the old operational code of elites’ political culture, composed of corruption, clientelism and informal deals, still persists. The lack of renewal of elites and the dominance of informal rules over formal procedures are two factors that keep the institutional core of Ukraine’s hybrid regime unchanged. Moreover, the case of Ukraine proves that these institutions possess a considerable adaptive capacity. Ineffective institutional equilibrium – institutional trap that evolved in Ukraine in the mid-1990s, demonstrates the ability to persist even under extreme challenges posed by revolution and war. Ukraine will hardly be able to change its trajectory until the qualitative renewal of elites takes place. Elites’ rotation and/or quasi-replacement do not produce genuine renewal. Since internal (economic decline and the threat of protests) and external (the war in the East) threats were unable to change the elites’ rent-seeking behavior, it is hybridization, rather than democratization or resurgence of authoritarianism, is a defining trend of the post revolutionary dynamics in Ukraine.
Civic and institutional dimensions of democratization in Ukraine: the role of civic unity
2015
The theoretical analysis presented in this article links the social and institutional conditions of democratization by looking at two rarely associated concepts, civic unity and the rule of law. It attempts to bring a novel approach to the study of democratization in a divided society such as Ukraine, building on a selection of the existing literature on the subject and focusing on the civic dimension of the process. It follows the approach of those political scientists who have challenged the “no precondition’ line in democratization research by looking precisely at context specific conditions that may sustain democracy. It is argued that the common sense of citizenship and belonging to a political community, supported by legal and institutional mechanisms and conscious effort of political elites, would contribute to the development of civil society and perhaps even democratic consolidation in the long run. Thus the civic and institutional dimensions of democratization should not b...
Democracy building in Ukraine: key contradictions
2017
Maxim Rozumny. Democracy building in Ukraine: key contradictions. Initially, the project for building democracy in Ukraine was characterized by a certain contradictory nature and suggested that liberalization of forms of public life should have been superimposed on the relatively intensive processes to form a political nation. During the entire period of social reforms in Ukraine the public awareness has been focusing on several marks of national development. The concepts of “building a state”, “building a civil society” and “formation of a political nation” were most widespread. Their value and strategic priorities often competes with each other in reality. The focus on “building a state” unambiguously makes the national idea of state sovereignty higher than the social idea of democratic self-government. Although a national idea is usually based on conservative values, as it has not been based on substantial tradition since Ukraine’s independence (institutions and public practices)...
Party System Institutionalization in Ukraine
Ukraine's party system is not sufficiently stable to facilitate the democratic consolidation of the country. However, the problem with this fundamental Ukrainian political institution runs much deeper than its inability to provide for its own stability. Prior to stabilizing a political institution, it is necessary to standardize and secure its rules and ensure its recognition in society. This article employs quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine the factors promoting and hindering the institutionalization of the party system in Ukraine.
Reforms, New Elites, and Old Structures How to Win the Battle for a New Ukraine
2016
In the two years since its " Revolution of Dignity " – also known as Euromaidan – Ukraine has launched important reform initiatives. Most of them are still in the inception phase, however, and much remains to be done to ensure their sustainability. The past two years have made clear the enormity of the challenge Ukraine faces in its transformation. At the same time, it has also shown unprecedentedly strong determination on the part of new reform-minded actors to overhaul the old system. Ukraine today can best understood as a battlefield: the old system and its structures are fighting for their survival, as new actors – from both within the system and outside it – push for a new social contract. This struggle is taking place on an everyday basis at different levels, national and local, in a number of different reform areas. External actors can best contribute by giving stronger support to reformers while promoting development of institutions that limit the space for vested interests to persist. Special attention should be paid to enforcing and implementing already adopted decisions and new laws that change the rules of the game.