16.03.07
From Apparatchik to President - From Businessman to Khan
Regime Transition and Consolidation in the Russian Republics of Buryatia and Kalmykia. (nr 271)
NUPI-rapport | Oslo, NUPI | 112 sider |
ISBN 82-7002-179-2
Brandvoll tar i denne rapporten for seg hvilke faktorer som påvirker enhetene i den russiske føderasjonen i autoritær eller demokratisk retning, med eksempler fra Kalmykia og Buryatia.
>> Summary
During the 1990s the Russian federal system moved ever closer to a confederation. The 89 federal subjects developed political regimes ranging from democratic systems to strongly authoritarian one-man rule. Through case studies from the republics of Kalmykia and Buryatia, Jorunn Brandvoll here investigates which factors determine why some federal subjects turn democratic, while others turn authoritarian. The starting-point for the analysis is the assumption scholars seem to make that traditional transition and consolidation theory is ill-suited when applied on ethnically divided societies. Brandvoll shows that traditional transition and consolidation theory does provide a useful framework for explaining the political development in the ethnically defined republics of Buryata and Kalmykia. However, the ethnic factor makes the political processes in ethnically defined regions somewhat different from those in other federal subjects. Ethnicity here works as an instrument to be used by political actors to gain and strengthen their power. Ethnic polarisation increases the chances that a narrowly defined, ethnically based regime will emerge, like it has in Kalmykia. Furthermore, the fact that the division between the haves and the have-nots follow ethnic dividing lines increases the polarisation in society to higher levels, which in its turn encourages the regime to adopt even harsher measures against its opponents. This can be contrasted with the situation in Buryatia, where the regime draws upon members of the largest ethnic and sub-ethnic groups. By co-opting various elite groups into the regime, Buryatia has developed a stable consesus regime, whereas the confrontational and narrowly based regime in Kalmykia rests on force and fear.
Hele publikasjonslisten
