Russian Political Science Research Articles

Political Science in Russia: Scholarship without Research?

After several decades of institutionalization of political science as a scholarly discipline in Russia, its quantitative output is quite impressive. This article offers a critical reconsideration of its substantive impact on scholarship in political science – and considers why that output has not been so impressive in terms of increasing knowledge about politics, both in Russia and beyond. It presents an overview of the state of Russian political science, with an emphasis on its major theoretical, methodological, and empirical shortcomings. It also considers the role of historical, institutional, and political factors for its developmental trajectory, and offers some suggestions for overcoming them.

THE POLITICAL CONCEPT OF A.S. PANARIN: UPDATE HUMANISTIC POTENTIAL

The article analyses A. S. Panarin’s political and philosophical views, his works. The author identifies the humanitarian orientation of Panarin’s concept, which becomes more actual due to the deideologization of modern political processes in Russia. The article reveals the humanistic potential of A.S. Panarin, the outstanding Russian philosopher and politologist, who devoted all his life to the search of a way, which could lead Russia out of spiritual, social and political crisis. The humanistic potential of Panarin’s legacy was underestimated by his contemporaries. A new generation of Russians will have to do much in this respect. Today Russia faces a requirement of spiritual renaissance and the necessity to develop its course. The article presents the study of dialectics of Panarin’s political and philosophical views and their impact on the formation of Russian political science. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2013-11-9

«BRAIN DRAIN» FROM RUSSIA AS A POLITICAL-MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

The article analyses the state of the art and the prospects of the Russian political science in terms of scientific communication. Political science develops through discussion on key problems of its subject matter: political power, legitimacy, justice, political regimes, etc. The quality of the discussion shapes the development of political science. The basic medium of the discussion remains an article in a scientific journal. Editorial policy of the leading journals is a key instrument for shaping the discussion and defining its norms and standards. There are few challenges for the Russian political science with respect to the development of a dialogue among its authors and scientific schools. First, it still has a form of a monologue rather than dialogue. There are a number of attempts to establish a dialogue with the leading foreign authors and a deficit of discussion among Russian political scientists. Second, double blind peer review still remains a rear practice. It is the only means for ensuring the high quality of scientific communication. Third, the quality of the discussion directly depends upon the differentiation of political science in the form of scientific schools. The Russian political science has a low degree of school differentiation. And the few schools that did manage to get established evade a dialogue on constitutive questions on theory and practice of political science. The author suggests that coordination of the leading journals’ editorial policy through different forms of institutional interactions including the Russian Political Science Association and the Russian International Studies Association might be an effective tool to encourage the discussion in the Russian political science and dialogue among its schools.

Wymiar technologiczny nauki o polityce i polityki: podejście rosyjskie

The paper presents the core of the technological attitude in Russian political science and practice. Certain problems related to its application are identified. The application of the technology of politics guarantees its rationalization, predictability, foundations for the political processes being modeled, and the desired results of the political process. The paper presents the author’s attempt at the periodization of the transformation of technology of political activity. It demonstrates the latest development trends of the technology of political activity under the conditions of Russian reality.

RUSSIA’S POLITICS OF HISTORY

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia’s politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states’ politics. Russia’s political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin’s Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins’s power.

Этнофедерализм: российский и зарубежный дискурс

The article considers different aspects of theory and practice of ethno-federalism disputed in the Russian and international political science. Special attention is given to such problems as advantages of ethnic federations and risks they create; ethno-federalism and realization of the right to self-determination, prevention and overcoming of ethnic conflicts and separatism.

«Города-близнецы»: новая форма приграничного сотрудничества в Балтийском регионе?

An attempt at a complex analysis of the «twin city» movement as a form of cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Region has been made for the first time in Russian political science literature. This phenomenon emerged as a result, on the one hand, of the global tendency towards the activation of municipal units in the field of international interaction, on the other hand, the tendency of border cities situated in the Baltic Region to solve the accumulating problems collectively. This work is based on the comparative analysis method, as well as the case study methodology. The authors consider four cases (pairs of cities): Tornio Haparanda, Valga Valka, Narva Ivangorod, and Imatra Svetogorsk. This article specifies the terminological framework used in this field of research. The authors analyse the achievements and failures of this type of international inter-municipality cooperation and emphasise that, for twin cities themselves, it served as not only a means of survival in the difficult conditions of the 1990s, but also as an experimental ground for the search for new forms of cross-border cooperation. A conclusion is made that this model is quite promising for the further development of integration processes in the Baltic Region. This practice can be applied by Russian municipal, regional, and federal authorities in the development of cross-border cooperation not only in the Baltic region, but also in other regions of the country. So, under the influence of successful experience of Baltic border cities and towns, the Russian town of Nikel and the Norwegian town of Kirkenes decided to use this model for further development of their mutual cooperation.

Comparative geopolitical analysis of “hotspots” in the Russian federation and in the Republic of Serbia

The Russian Federation and the Republic of Serbia have experienced internal challenges to their own unity and coherence for a long time. This work represents the analysis of these challenges, which can be defined, geopolitically speaking, as “hotspots”. Relying on the observations of Russian political scientists, the author of this work analyzed the so-called “crisis potential” in four “hotspots” in the Russian Federation. In the Republic of Serbia, five areas are marked that emit instability and jeopardise (or can jeopardise) its unity, peace and prosperity. Certain similarities are found between the compared “hotspots”, and differences as well. The region of North Caucasus is marked as the most dangerous “hotspot” in the Russian Federation, which has not been completely solved yet by the Russian federal authorities, due to the constant terrorist attacks. The purpose of the attacks is to extort from Russia the withdrawal from the area and create conditions for the political independence. The author found a geopolitical analogy to the North Caucasus “hotspot” (Chechnya) in the Republic of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. In the conclusion, it is stated that, at present, disparate geopolitical processes are taking place in the two countries - the Federal Centre is strengthening in the Russian Federation and the Federal Subjects are losing their attributes of statehood, whereas in the Republic of Serbia, the centrifugal tendencies are gaining prominence that can completely fragment it.

Формирование политической элиты Литвы на рубеже

This article considers the dynamics of structural changes in the political elite of the Republic of Lithuania in the post-Soviet period through analysing the role of the so-called «moral politicians» intellectuals, artists, and cultural figures, who played the decisive role in the period of communist system disintegration and further development of the country's policy. The role of the political elite, understood according to R. Putnam and J. Higley's definition, is considered in the conditions of political instability and uncertainty typical of transformation processes. In this context, the role of key actors is interpreted on the basis of the methodological structure of the so-called Stanford model developed by G. Almond and P. Bourdieu's theory of capital. This article reconstructs the course of political changes in the Republic of Lithuania at the initial stage of its independence, in the framework of which the key role was played by «moral politicians», most of whom subsequently retired from politics. Focusing on the situation in Lithuania, this research sets out to show the continuous dependence of today's policies of the Baltic States on the key choices made by the authorities at the turn of 1980s-1990s. Today, Russian political science lacks concrete regional studies into the problems of changes of elites in the context of research on the processes of postcommunist transformations. This work addresses the scientific interpretation of the content of «new» political elite development mechanisms in postcommunist societies under the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors in the course of transformation. The stabilisation of elite formation processes in Lithuania, the assessment of patterns and tendencies, the identification of power centres and the character of intra-elite interaction, and a profound understanding of the functioning of Lithuanian political system in general will allow Russia to formulate a more efficient policy towards the Baltic States, which would promptly respond to emerging challenges.

The formation of the political elite in Lithuania at the turn of the 1980s—1990s: the role of “moral politicians”

This article considers the trend of structural changes in the political elite of the Republic of Lithuania in the post-Soviet period through analyzing the role of the so-called “moral politicians” — intellectuals, artists, and cultural figures, who played a decisive role in the period of the communist system disintegration and further development of the country's policy. The role of the political elite, which is understood according to R. Putnam and J. Higley's definition, is considered in the conditions of political instability and uncertainty typical of transformation processes. In this context, the role of key actors is interpreted on the basis of the methodological structure of the so-called Stanford model developed by G. Almond and P. Bourdieu's theory of capital. This article reconstructs the course of political changes in the Republic of Lithuania at the initial stage of its independence, in the framework of which the key role was played by «moral politicians», most of whom subsequently retired from politics. Focusing on the situation in Lithuania, this research sets out to show the continuous dependence of today's policies of the Baltic States on the key choices made by the authorities at the turn of 1980s—1990s. Today, Russian political science lacks concrete regional studies into the issues of changes of elites in the context of research on the processes of postcommunist transformations. This work addresses the scientific interpretation of the content of mechanisms of «new» political elite development in postcommunist societies under the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors in the course of transformation. The stabilisation of elite formation processes in Lithuania, the assessment of patterns and trends, the identification of power centres and the character of intra-elite interaction, and a profound understanding of the functioning of Lithuanian political system in general will allow Russia to formulate a more efficient policy towards the Baltic States, which would promptly respond to emerging challenges.

THE LONG-RUN FORECAST: IN SEARCH OF THE RUSSIAN AND WORLD FUTURE

The article is devoted to the substantiation of the necessity of fundamental change of the Russian political science problematic focus. Stating that the Russian political science is at a bifurcation point now, V.Martyanov talks about several possible directions of its development. The first one is to be satisfied with the status of “normal” (in comparison to the already existing “universal” patterns) science and by doing so throw itself to playing secondary role and being dependent in its choice of values and goals. The second way is to go into shell interpreting universal as national. The third one is tied to the belief that our political as being specific might become interesting for the rest of the world and therefore, universal, might produce values and goals if not now, then in the future. Martyanov thinks that Russia can no doubt take upon the role of being a generator of new principles of the global Modernity, but only in that case if it offers decisions not as much for itself, but for the humanity as a whole.

The Limits of Russian Democratisation: Emergency Powers and States of Emergency by Alexander Domrin (review)

584 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 There ismuch that is new and interesting in this book. The author in corporates a broad knowledge of the comparative research on constitution making, and his approach is creative and ambitious. Unfortunately, the cen tral thrust of the argument is often hidden by over-elaborate comparative examples, and many of the subtleties of the argument are lost in the English translation of the text. Most surprisingwas the limited use made of the con siderable documentary, stenographic and interview evidence that is available on the post-Soviet period. This may lead the reader to question some of Medushevsky's empirical claims, as well as his assertion that 'since informa tion on the constitution drafting is restricted,we stilldo not know much about the motives and nature of major borrowings in the Russian Constitution' (p. 203). Yet, as an interpretive analysis of Russian constitutionalism from a Russian perspective, it isan important contribution to scholarship in this field. For Western students and scholars who are not familiar with Russian political science, itwill provide an insight into the tools of analysis used by one of the leading Russian authorities in this field. StAntony'sCollege Paul Chaisty UniversityofOxford Domrin, Alexander. The Limits ofRussian Democratisation: EmergencyPowers and States of Emergency. BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 22. Routledge, London and New York, 2006. xiv +188 pp. Notes. Index. ?60.00. Commendable as much for the interesting information in forty-fivepages of endnotes as for its main text, thiswork is a worthy addition to theBASEES/ Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies. The subtitle ? 'Emergency Powers and States of Emergency' ? ismore illustrative of itscontent than the headline title.One of themain strengthsof the book is its review of the differentprovisions world wide required for the imposition of a state of emergency (or equivalent; the range of nomenclature is almost as broad as the variety of required procedures). In the Introduction there are also some astonishing revelations about the uses of 'states of emergency'. 'It came as a shock to many members of US Congress in 1971 to learn that the United States had been in a state of national emergency since 9March 1933' (p. 5). 'The US Senate Special Committee [...] stated in 1973: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency'" (p. 6). The US is not unique in its derogation of constitutional rights: 'Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur of theUN Sub-Committee [...], listed 80 [!] states that had, since 1 January 1985 "taken measures which constituted the proclama tion, extension, maintenance or termination of emergency relations in various forms'" (p. 6). Clearly this book is timely in highlighting a frequent phenomenon, both dejure and de facto. reviews 585 The firstchapter gives an historical account of the development of the concept, including discussion of Hampden's case in seventeenth-century England. Alexander Domrin's thesis is that 'Evolution of "emergency powers", as a legal institution, inEuropean countries (first of all, inEngland) is inseparable from the development of the Rule of Law' (p. 17).The sec ond chapter overviews world practice and international legal considerations. Domrin notes that the 'Siracusa principles' formulated in 1984 at a presti gious conference of international experts considering the 'grounds for per missible limitations and derogations enunciated in the ICCPR' [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] were mistranslated intoRussian ? or was substituted for and in the definition of a threat to the life of a nation, diminished the cumulative requirement of 'affecting the whole of the population and either thewhole or part of the territory' (p. 52). In the third chapter 'Legal regulation of emergency powers in Imperial Russia' Domrin cogently argues that Imperial Russian penal law was 'one of themildest in Europe' (p. 70, quoting Albert Heard in 1887/8) and that Russia was comparatively enlightened in its treatment of dissent. 'In the whole body ofRussian Imperial legislation [. . . ] one can hardly find a statute that has been as much misinterpreted and misrepresented [. . .] as the emergency law of...

Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Development by Andrey N. Medushevsky (review)

REVIEWS 583 Medushevsky, Andrey N. Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Development.BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 28. Routledge, London and New York, 2006. x + 264 pp. Notes. Index. ?65.00. Russia's post-Communist experience of constitution making is of interest and importance to students of both Russian and comparative politics. Many scho lars attribute theproblems Russia has faced since the collapse ofCommunism to faulty institutional design, and theRussian case raisesmany questions and issues that go to the heart of contemporary scholarship on transitional states and societies. However, few books in English have tackled this subject. In Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Developmentone of Russia's foremost specialists on comparative constitutionalism, Andrey Medushevsky, attempts to fillthisgap. Medushevky's interpretive analysis derives from detailed comparative and historical knowledge of legal thought and political practice in Russia and beyond. He draws on the constitutional experience of many societies and compares the history of Russian constitutionalism ? both tsarist and Soviet ? before addressing the problems of Russia's present-day constitution. Indeed, Medushevsky claims to offer the first analysis of Russian constitution alism from a comparative perspective. This work combines many different themes and strands, but at the centre is the argument that constitutional processes in Russia are cyclical in nature. In his analysis, the concept of a constitutional cycle covers the 'emergence, development and termination' (p. 9) of the constitution-making process. To be more precise, Medushevsky draws a distinction between three stages: 'deconstitutionalization (undermined legitimacy and repeal of the old consti tution), constitutionalization (adopting a new constitution and specifying its norms in the sectoral legislation), and reconstitutionalization (introduction of constitutional amendments bringing current rules in line with former constitutional rules and practices)' (p. 13).This typology of stages is used to structure the analysis of the three 'big' cycles in recent Russian history: pre revolutionary attempts at constitution building (chapter three); Soviet 'nomi nal constitutionalism' (chapter four); and, finally, constitutional developments since the collapse of Communism (chapter five). For Medushevky, Russia is currently in the 'reconstitutionalization' stage of the third big cycle. Given the pattern of previous cycles, he questions whether 'the current constitutional cycle, like other ones, [will] end up reproducing the authoritarian phase in one of its numerous forms?' (p. 17). Theoretically, Medushevsky argues that by treating constitution making as a cyclical process it can be analysed like any social or economic phenomenon; analytically, his approach allows for the separation of the static and dynam ic elements of each phase of Russia's constitutional development, which in turn provides a comparative method for analysing constitutional processes in societies affected by the periodic crisis of their fundamental rules. The dynamic element that he identifies ? the ongoing conflict between law and social reality ? is found to be a common feature in many modernizing societies. For example, Medushevsky draws similarities between the French and Russian cases, as well as highlighting key differenceswith themore stable, 'linear' experience of constitutional reform in Anglo-American societies. 584 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 There ismuch that is new and interesting in this book. The author in corporates a broad knowledge of the comparative research on constitution making, and his approach is creative and ambitious. Unfortunately, the cen tral thrust of the argument is often hidden by over-elaborate comparative examples, and many of the subtleties of the argument are lost in the English translation of the text. Most surprisingwas the limited use made of the con siderable documentary, stenographic and interview evidence that is available on the post-Soviet period. This may lead the reader to question some of Medushevsky's empirical claims, as well as his assertion that 'since informa tion on the constitution drafting is restricted,we stilldo not know much about the motives and nature of major borrowings in the Russian Constitution' (p. 203). Yet, as an interpretive analysis of Russian constitutionalism from a Russian perspective, it isan important contribution to scholarship in this field. For Western students and scholars who are not familiar with Russian political science, itwill provide an insight into the tools of analysis used by one of the leading Russian authorities in this field. StAntony'sCollege Paul Chaisty UniversityofOxford Domrin, Alexander. The Limits ofRussian Democratisation: EmergencyPowers...

On the RPSA's Fourth Congress

The Fourth Congress of the Russian Political Science Association (RPSA) met in Moscow over October 20–22, 2006. The theme of the congress was “Democracy, Security, and Good Governance: New Challenges for Political Science.” I represented the American Political Science Association at the Congress, and representatives of the IPSA and of the Greek, Korean, Ukrainian, and Belarus Political Science Associations were there as well on behalf of their organizations. Political scientists from Germany, Egypt, and Switzerland also took part. Friday was devoted to plenary sessions, Saturday to thematic panel sessions, and Sunday to section meetings. Some 400 members of the RPSA from throughout the country attended the congress. Many of these were young scholars, including graduate students. In Russia, political science—politology, as it is more commonly termed—has become a recognized discipline in many universities and research institutes, and a number of textbooks have been published for use in political science courses.

APSA Strengthens International Ties

In January, 2006, APSA staff met with the President Alexander Nikitin of the Russian Political Science Association (RPSA) for discussions at the National Office in Washington, D.C. APSA is interested in establishing functional and research-based ties with scholarly communities overseas and these talks were an encouraging part of this process. As a start, APSA has agreed to provide RPSA with information on news and events in the discipline, while the RPSA has invited Thomas Remington, department chair at Emory University, to serve as a plenary speaker at their upcoming Annual Meeting in Moscow this October.

Политология в СССР: формирование и развитие научного сообщества

Detailed analysis of the activity of the Soviet Political Science Association enables the author to refute the prevalent idea that in the Soviet period, development of political science in Russia in point of fact discontinued. According to his account, it’s exactly in that period that in the country a political-science community formed, which was carrying out productive scientific work and used the available scientific infrastructure and the potential of the higher school for establishing political science and for the increase of knowledge. It is at the same time demonstrated in the article that the said community remained numerically very scanty and the intellectual product it was turning out was not demanded by the political leadership of the country. What was negatively telling on the development of Russian political science, in the author’s estimation, was, too, lack of continuity of scholarly traditions as would have been secured by a system of reproduction of scientific personnel training.

Legislative Activism of Russian Duma Deputies, 1996–1999

RUSSIA'S FEDERAL ASSEMBLY EXERTS ITS INFLUENCE upon policy making not so much by choosing the government but rather through the exercise of law making. In this study, factors influencing the law-making activism of the members of the State Duma, the lower chamber of the Federal Assembly, will be identified and analysed.' The second Duma was elected on 17 December 1995, and its powers ceased in December 1999. Hence the chronological scope of our analysis. The federal legislatures elected in 1993 and 1995 have attracted a certain attention from Russian and Western political scientists, which resulted in a number of penetrating studies.2 However, no systematic analysis of the determinants of legislative activism in Russia has been undertaken so far. We expect that this study will allow us to place the legislative process in Russia in a broad comparative perspective and to develop meaningful generalisations about policy making in Russia, and especially about inter-branch relations. Many political scientists hold that the political behaviour of an individual legislator substantially depends on what place is given to the legislature in the law-making process, as well as in the political system as a whole.3 To be a powerful political institution, a legislature has to possess constitutional authority in law making and in confirmation of appointments. Under presidentialism, a separation-of-powers system causes legislators to view executive policy from a distance. If a legislature takes a large part in law making, then parliamentary committees become the primary arenas for legislative deliberation on policy questions. A specialised committee system enables legislators to develop the technical expertise of bills. Autonomous and powerful committees provide an individual deputy with a better chance of exerting influence and winning re-election than a political party could do. Legislators have a strong sense of identification with their committees rather than with their political parties. Such a characterisation clearly fits the American Congress.4 The relatively weak American party system allows Congress deputies to establish their own strong ties to their constituents, often at the expense of their party's interests.5 The consequences of the American electoral system cannot be neglected either. Singlemember plurality systems are associated with more independent behaviour inside the legislature than proportional systems are.6 In parliamentary systems parties are major channels for legislature organisation, and deputies are engaged in partisan debate over government policies rather than in drafting laws. Majority support in the parliament is essential for keeping the executive in power. The parliament usually accepts bills recommended by the executive as a

Putin's Path to Power

A specialist on Russian politics analyzes the rise to power and policy orientations of Vladimir Putin. Documents, on-site observation of the electoral campaign, interviews of some principals, and reports of Russian political scientists comprise the base of evidence. Areas covered include institutional levers, personal factors, and policy appeals that made possible Putin's electoral victory; his subsequent relations with the Duma, business tycoons, security organs, and regions; and his orientations to state-building, patriotism, and economic policy.

Observations on the Transformation of the Political Science Community in Post-Soviet Russia

For at least the past decade, the international political science community has been debating the state of the discipline, the level of its maturity, and the challenges to it from realpolitik (Goodin and Klingemann 1996, chap. 1). One of the most serious challenges came from the implosion of the USSR and subsequent transformation of political systems in Russia and Eastern Europe. Political scientists appeared unable to predict these global changes or to elaborate explanatory models of current processes. Applications of classic models to the new democracies has proven insufficient. This puts a problem of universality versus national specificity of political science on the agenda (Lecca 1997).For Russian political scientists, this problem has some specific implications. First, the practice of political science is determined by its object—politics. It is well-known that perestroika, which started more than ten years ago, had no clear aims but was guided by the intuitive desire of Russia's political elite to modernize the country. Russian leaders wished to modernize the country by remaking the government in the model of a Western democratic system. But neither in the late 1980s nor now have political scientists or politicians worked out any clear means for achieving such a transition.

Observations on the Transformation of the Political Science Community in Post-Soviet Russia

For at least the past decade, the international political science community has been debating the state of the discipline, the level of its maturity, and the challenges to it from realpolitik (Goodin and Klingemann 1996, chap. 1). One of the most serious challenges came from the implosion of the USSR and subsequent transformation of political systems in Russia and Eastern Europe. Political scientists appeared unable to predict these global changes or to elaborate explanatory models of current processes. Applications of classic models to the new democracies has proven insufficient. This puts a problem of universality versus national specificity of political science on the agenda (Lecca 1997).For Russian political scientists, this problem has some specific implications. First, the practice of political science is determined by its object—politics. It is well-known that perestroika, which started more than ten years ago, had no clear aims but was guided by the intuitive desire of Russia's political elite to modernize the country. Russian leaders wished to modernize the country by remaking the government in the model of a Western democratic system. But neither in the late 1980s nor now have political scientists or politicians worked out any clear means for achieving such a transition.