The Post-Soviet as Post-Colonial: A New Paradigm for Understanding Constitutional Dynamics in the Former Soviet Empire by William Partlett and Herbert Küpper (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Post-Soviet as Post-Colonial: A New Paradigm for Understanding Constitutional Dynamics in the Former Soviet Empire by William Partlett and Herbert Küpper W. E. Butler Partlett, William and Küpper, Herbert. The Post-Soviet as Post-Colonial: A New Paradigm for Understanding Constitutional Dynamics in the Former Soviet Empire. Elgar Monographs in Constitutional and Administrative Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, 2022. xii + 269 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £95.00. Unlike the American experience where the Constitution has remained in force since 1789 with infrequent amendments, the first ten coming rather quickly, Russia in the twentieth century experienced several generations of constitutions between 1905 and 1993, all linked expressly or otherwise to fundamental changes in societal development and held out as a model for other state systems to emulate. Western political science and comparative constitutional law have found it instructive to view such constitution-making through the prism of 'authoritarian' models as juxtaposed with 'democratic', usually acknowledging that pure versions of either did not exist. The present volume offers an alternative reading to the authoritarian/post-authoritarian perspectives that have dominated comparative constitutional discourse by [End Page 187] suggesting a post-colonial lens be superimposed on constitutional-making processes. The category of 'post-colonial' is seen as an additional, not a replacement, perspective which the authors hope will improve our perceptions of 'constitutional dynamics'. The (former?) colonial power is Russia in their analysis, which acquired 'colonies' that fell into two groups: the former Soviet republics within the USSR, the 'inner Empire'; and the satellite States, formally independent but under Soviet domination (Central Europe, Mongolia and the Baltic States), here styled as the 'outer Empire'. Hungary is singled out as a case study of constitution-formation and given a separate chapter. Omitted from consideration are areas where the Soviet authorities exercised 'soft power' — Yugoslavia, Albania, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos, Cuba — and others once classified as countries 'of a socialist orientation'. From the outset the authors avoid the key issue of what differentiates a 'post-authoritarian' and a 'post-colonial' jurisdiction as being beyond their scope. They do suggest that 'post-authoritarian' implies a progressive transition towards liberal democratic constitutionalism, a limited State, a strong judiciary, and an emphasis on individual, rather than collective, rights. One immediate problem is that 'colonial' is a pejorative term that engages multiple (two or more) subjects of international law, whereas 'authoritarian' is a domestic law term confined to a single jurisdiction. There is no definition of 'colonial' in international law; usually it is explained by examples. On a broad reading, every historical situation in which a state exercises, or claims to exercise, influence or authority over a people, nation, or state outside its boundaries is eligible for possible classification as a 'colony'; often the term is associated with flows of migration and settlement. Self-awareness may also be a factor. Russia until 1917 declared itself to be an empire and from at least Petrine times forward was widely so regarded — a self-perception that some would regard as automatically making Russia a colonial power. The authors concentrate on the dissolution of the former Soviet Union but do not really address the Russian Federation as a colonial or post-colonial entity. Modern Russia is said to contain one hundred or so ethnic groups, some more or less concentrated geographically, others dispersed throughout the land. The Russian Constitution recognizes, as of October 2022, eighty-nine subjects of the Federation (or should some or all be designated as 'colonies'). All eighty-nine have a constitution or equivalent constitutive document and are bound together by international treaty. An authoritarian paradigm treats Russia as a single entity for these purposes; a colonial paradigm, if applicable, would take a different perspective. Within the limited scope of this study, the authors work with a very broad brush. They are no doubt correct that the colonial/post-colonial paradigm [End Page 188] offers insights into constitution-formation and collateral issues not readily observable through alternative paradigms. All of which enriches the discipline of comparative law. Omitted from their study and virtually all others in this field is a consideration of the twenty-one-volume verbatim...