Post-Soviet Transitions and Democratization: Towards Theory-Building

Abstract

Conventional models of 'transitions to democracy' are incomplete and insufficient for the analysis of the regime changes in Russia and other post-Soviet societies, which go beyond the usual textbook cases. This article reconsiders conceptual frameworks for the analysis of democracy and democratization in the light of the experience of post-Soviet political developments. The distinction between types of predominant political institutions (formal versus informal, or the rule of law versus arbitrary rule) marks a watershed between 'transitions to democracy' and post-Soviet transitions to somewhat different regimes. The principal sources of political contestation in post-Soviet societies are intra-elite conflicts rather than 'pacts'. There is no one clear basis from which to establish the dominance of formal institutions. That goal could be achieved by three different ways: (1) step-by-step acceptance of formal institutions as a by-product of development of political contestation; (2) return to anon-competitive political regime and then installation of new formal institutions through re-establishing new state capacities; and (3) undermining of the emerging political regimes through political conflicts. However, none of these would guarantee the emergence of the rule of law.