Obydenkova, Anastassia and Libman, Alexander (eds) Autocratic and Democratic External Influences in Post-Soviet Eurasia (review)

Abstract

SEER, 94, 4, October 2016 780 Obydenkova, Anastassia and Libman, Alexander (eds). Autocratic and Democratic External Influences in Post-Soviet Eurasia. Soviet Politics. Ashgate, Farnham and Burlington, VT, 2015. xvi + 188 pp. Figures. Tables. Notes. Bibliographies. Index. £60.00. It is often difficult to adequately review an edited book, especially when it draws on a wide range of case studies and covers two important literatures. I therefore ask the reader to humour me and accept a review of the authoritarian promotion and theoretical sections of the book. There are better analyses of democratic external influences than this book provides and authoritarian promotion remains an understudied topic. Of even more relevance to understanding is the theory-building in the first two chapters provided by the volume’s editors. It is the authoritarian promotion and theoretical aspects which give the study its value. Analysis of authoritarian promotion is currently very much a growth industry in academia. I use the term authoritarian, rather than autocracy, the chosen value throughout the book, as at no point is there a definition of what the authors mean by autocracy. The book requires an explanation of why the authors refer to Russia as an autocracy, which is a state ruled by one man, but the book fails to elucidate this. Another issue throughout is the necessity for a further round of copy editing. However, there is certainly value to the study’s investigation. The editors are correct that there is an imbalance between democratic and authoritarian promotion with a significant analysis of ‘democratic external influence and devoted much less attention to other types of influence’ (p. 7). In their introduction, Libman and Obydenkova set out the analysis that seeks to ascertain if external factors affect states. In terms of authoritarianism the analysis is concerned with ‘why, how and to what extent autocratic countries affect regime transition’ (p. 3). The analysis is interesting for its investigation of supranational and subnational levels and not just the state-level. This basis sets the scene for the comprehensive theoretical chapter by Obydenkova and Libman. In terms of authoritarianism, a key argument is the creation of a framework to ascertain if ‘autocratic regimes have a negative effect on democratization abroad’ (p. 11). While the chapter is novel, investigating actors apart from the state, gaps in the literature are not adequately addressed. The authors claim that Russia is not the only ‘active player in the post-Soviet regionalism’ (p. 21), but throughout the book Russia predominates as the authoritarian promoter par excellence. The chapters provided by Tom Casier and Jakob Tolstrup deliver some valuable, interesting and promising analysis. After reading so far the reader is richly rewarded by an analysis of intended and unintended consequences REVIEWS 781 of EU and Russian promotion in the shared neighbourhood. Through interdependence, diffusion from state to state and attraction are all relevant processes in how the EU and Russia impact their neighbours. The only small issue is that Casier’s analysis focuses on the EU to a far greater extent than Russia and so could have been included in the democratic influence section. Tolstrup’s chapter, too, is well argued and comprehensive with Russia cast as the authoritarian black knight in Ukraine and Moldova, destabilizing its neighbours to keep them in its sphere-of-influence, since as secessionist regions Russia’s neighbours cannot join Western institutions (p. 116). Although it is still too early to provide detailed analysis, the chapter perhaps could have used an investigation of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics to ascertain how Russia is continuing to undermine Ukraine. Thelasttwochaptersconcentrateonsupra-nationalauthoritarianinstitutions and public diplomacy in Russia. Ekaterina Furman’s chapter is interesting for its analysis of Kremlin-supported NGOs and the regime’s views on soft power. The author finds that NGOs do not appear to be ‘relatively ineffective in terms of supporting regimes abroad, even if they intended to’ (p. 171). This lack of promotion is the elephant in the room in Libman’s chapter. Having provided a general analysis of regional organizations as potential harbingers of authoritarianism through economic, legitimation and governance support and where the case study of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) ‘shields its members from the democratizing impact...