from 01.01.2012 until now
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
UDC 32
UDC 321
CSCSTI 11.00
The purpose of the article is to identify the directions of evolution of personal power regimes in Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in the context of ensuring their stability. The index methods of A. Crowell and O.I. Zaznaev are used as a methodology for studying the legally established powers of the head of state (determining the form of government using the index of presidential and parliamentary powers and their relationship to each other); the author's index of institutionalization of the institute of the presidency is used to analyze the institutionalization of the institute of the presidency. After the formation of independent states in Belarus, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, personalistic regimes were formed and consolidated, which are characterized by specific personalities of the head of state, which determine the stability of the political system, and which is the main factor of legitimacy. In Belarus and Turkmenistan, trends towards increasing the institutionalization of the institution of the president began to gain momentum during the end of presidential terms and the analysis of the prospects for the departure of current leaders from the presidency. In Uzbekistan, the issue of creating institutions for the transfer of power will be postponed until the end of the presidential term of Sh. Mirziyoyev. In relation to the political regimes of Turkmenistan and Belarus, stability can be predicted in the medium term due to the constitutional consolidation of a wide range of presidential powers. In these States, the regime of personal power has transformed into an institutionalized, uncompetitive regime that has a high potential for stability even if the current leaders step down from the presidency. In the case of Uzbekistan, the regime of personal power remains in place, making it potentially vulnerable to internal and external threats. The thesis that institutionalization is a tool for solving the problems of stabilization and prevention of internal and external threats in the conditions of a personalistic regime is confirmed. The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that the results obtained during the index analysis of the post-Soviet states under consideration make it possible to clarify the concept of the regime of personal power and the directions of its possible evolution in a comparative perspective.
Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the regime of personal power, institutionalization, personalism, the institution of the presidency, political stability
1. Alekseev R.A., Abramov A.V. Transformaciya politicheskoy sistemy Respubliki Belarus' v svete konstitucionnyh preobrazovaniy 2022 goda // Sovremennoe pravo. - 2024. - № 4. - S. 124-129.
2. Borisov N.A. Institucionalizaciya personalizma: institut Lidera nacii na postsovetskom prostranstve // Central'naya Aziya i Kavkaz. – 2017. – № 2. – S. 69–82.
3. Borisov N.A. Nadparlamentskie predstavitel'nye organy vlasti v postsovetskoy Evrazii: novye polnomochiya «staryh» institutov // Politicheskaya nauka. – 2024. – № 3. – S. 87–113. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2024.03.04.
4. Borisov N.A. Prezidentstvo na postsovetskom prostranstve: processy genezisa i transformaciy. – M.: Rossiyskiy gosudarstvennyy gumanitarnyy universitet, 2018. – 537 s.
5. Vasilevich G.A. Novelly belorusskoy Konstitucii kak faktor ustoychivogo razvitiya gosudarstva // Pravo.by. – 2022. – № 2. – S. 14–23.
6. Veber M. Hozyaystvo i obschestvo: ocherki ponimayuschey sociologii: v 4 t. – T. 1: Sociologiya. – M.: Izdatel'skiy dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2021. – 445 s.
7. Gandi D., Pshevorskiy A. Avtoritarnye instituty i sohranenie vlasti avtokratami // Neprikosnovennyy zapas: debaty o politike i kul'ture. – 2018. – № 5. – S. 200–222. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007305817.
8. Gel'man V.Ya. «Podryvnye» instituty i neformal'noe upravlenie v sovremennoy Rossii // Politiya: Analiz. Hronika. Prognoz. – 2010. – № 2. – S. 6–24. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2010-57-2-6-24.
9. Zaznaev O.I. Indeksnyy analiz poluprezidentskih gosudarstv Evropy i postsovetskogo prostranstva // Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. – 2007. – № 2. – S. 146–164.
10. Zaznaev O.I. Poluprezidentskaya sistema: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty. – Kazan': Kazanskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, 2006. – 372 s.
11. Krasnov M.A. Na puti k depersonifikacii rossiyskoy vlasti: izmenenie statusa glavy gosudarstva // Politicheskaya konceptologiya. – 2016. – № 4. – S. 78–96.
12. Krasnov M.A. Postsovetskie gosudarstva: est' li zavisimost' politicheskogo rezhima ot konstitucionnogo dizayna? // Sravnitel'noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie. – 2014. – № 2. – S. 29–45.
13. Mad'yar B., Madlovich B. Postkommunisticheskie rezhimy: konceptual'naya struktura: v 2 t. T. 1 / per. s angl. Yu. Ignat'evoy pod red. A. Reshetnikova. – M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2022. – 744 s.
14. Medushevskiy A.N. Pravovoe ustroystvo Sredney Azii: strategii manevrirovaniya mezhdu global'nymi i nacional'nymi prioritetami (noveyshie konstitucionnye preobrazovaniya v Kirgizii, Kazahstane i Uzbekistane) // Sravnitel'noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie. – 2023. – № 2. – S. 33–68. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2023-2-33-68.
15. Mirzehanov K.V. Tranzit vlasti v Turkmenistane i ego vliyanie na vneshnyuyu politiku strany // Voprosy politologii. – 2023. – № 8–1. – S. 4000–4008. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.35775/PSI.2023.96-1.8.029.
16. Sergeev N., Fadeev A. Zavershenie formirovaniya plyuralisticheskogo avtoritarizma v Respublike Belarus' pered vyborami 2019-2020 gg. // Postsovetskiy materik. – 2019. – № 3. – S. 5–34.
17. Tokarev A.A., Prihodchenko A.Yu., Margoev A.R. Institucional'nye reformy kak faktor tranzita vlasti v avtoritarnyh rezhimah na primere Kitaya, Irana i postsovetskih stran // Politicheskaya nauka. – 2021. – № 2. – S. 165–186. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.02.06.
18. Hantington S. Politicheskiy poryadok v menyayuschihsya obschestvah. – M.: Progress-Tradiciya, 2004. – 480 s.
19. Geddes B. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? // Annual review in political science. – 1999. – Iss. 2. – P. 115–144. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115.
20. Hale H. 25 years after the USSR: what’s gone wrong? // Journal of Democracy. – 2016. – Vol. 27. – Iss. 3. – P. 24–35. – DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0035.
21. Hale H. Regime cycles: democracy, autocracy, and revolution in post-soviet Eurasia // World Politics. – 2005. – Vol. 58. – Iss. 1. – R. 133–165. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0019.
22. Krouwel A. Measuring presidentialism and parliamentarism: an application to Central and East European countries // Acta Politica. – 2003. – Iss. 4. – P. 333–364. – DOI:https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500041.
23. Linz H., Stepan A. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. – 479 p.
