.jpg)
printTrapped in Hybridity:
Ukraine’s Regime Transformations after the 2014 Revolution
Matsiyevsky Yu.V.,
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, National University of Ostroh Academy, Ukraine, yurii.matsiievskyi@oa.edu.ua
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.01.07
Rubric: Orbis terrarum
For citation:
Matsiyevsky Yu.V. Trapped in Hybridity: Ukraine’s Regime Transformations after the 2014 Revolution. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No. 1. P. 96-115. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.01.07
Abstract
Has the Ukraine’s regime changed since the 2014 revolution? What effects does a revolution haveon stability or change of a hybrid regime? To answer these questions the article deals with the changes informal and informal institutions and the quantitative and qualitative composition of elites after the changeof power in 2014. The author argues that despite the quantitative renewal of elites, greater in scope than inthe “post-orange period”, there has been no qualitative renewal of elites. Meanwhile, the old operationalcode of elites’ political culture, composed of corruption, clientelism and informal deals, still persists. Thelack of renewal of elites and the dominance of informal rules over formal procedures are the factors thatkeep the institutional core of Ukraine’s hybrid regime unchanged. Moreover, the case of Ukraine provesthat these institutions possess a considerable adaptive capacity. Ineffective institutional equilibrium –institutional trap that evolved in Ukraine in the mid-1990s, demonstrates the ability to persist even underextreme challenges posed by revolution and war. Ukraine will hardly be able to change its trajectory until thequalitative renewal of elites takes place. Elites’ rotation and/or quasi-replacement do not produce genuinerenewal. Since internal (economic decline and the threat of protests) and external (the war in the East)threats were unable to change the elites’ rent-seeking behavior, it can be stated that hybridization, ratherthan democratization or resurgence of authoritarianism, should be considered a defining trend of the postrevolutionary dynamics in Ukraine.
Keywords
Ukraine; revolution; political regime; regime change; elite change; informal institutions; institutional trap; clientelism.
References
Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown Publisher. 2012. 563 p.
Andersen D., Møller J., Rørbæk L.L., Skaaning S.-E. State Capacity and Political Regime Stability. – Democratization. 2014. Vol. 21. No. 7. P. 1305-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.960204
Beyond the Euromaidan: Comparative Perspectives on Advancing Reform in Ukraine. Ed. by H. Hale. R. Orttung. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2016. 322 p.
D’Anieri P. Understanding Ukrainian Politics: Power, Politics, and Institutional Design. New York: M.E. Sharpe; Routledge. 2007. 312 p.
Diuk N. Euromaidan: Ukraine’s Self-Organizing Revolution. – World Affairs. 2014. Vol. 176. No. 2. P. 9-16.
Fishman R.M. Rethinking State and Regime: Southern Europe’s Transition to Democracy. – World Politics. 1990. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 422-440.
Fisun A. Demokratiya, neopatrimonializm i global’nye transformatsii [Democracy, Neo-Patrimonialism and Global Transformations]. Khar’kov: Konstanta. 352 p. (In Russ.)
Gandhi J. Przeworski A. Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. – Comparative Political Studies. 2007. Vol. 40. No. 11. P. 1279-1301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007305817
Gelman V.Ya. Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire? (Post-Soviet Regime Dynamics in Comparative Perspective). – Polis. Political Studies. 2007. No. 2. P. 81-108 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.06
Gelman V. Modernizatsiya, instituty i “porochnyi krug” postsovetskogo neopatrimonializma [Modernization, Institutions and the “Vicious Circle” of Post-Soviet Neo-Patrimonialism]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. 2015. 44 p. (In Russ.) URL: https://eu.spb.ru/images/M_center/M_41_15.pdf
Hale H.E. Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings. – Annual Review of Political Science. 2013. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 331-353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212204
Hale H.E. Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics in Comparative Perspective (Problems of International Politics). New York: Cambridge University Press. 2014. 540 p.
Hale H.E. Constututional Performance After Communism: Implications for Ukraine. – Beyond the Euromaidan: Comparative Perspectives on Advancing Reform in Ukraine. Ed. by H.E. Hale, R.W. Orttung. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2016. P. 124-142.
Harasymiw B. Post-Soviet Ukraine. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. 2002. 469 p.
Higley J., Pakulski J. Elite Power Games and Democratic Consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe (1999). – Historical Social Research. 2012. Vol. 37. No. 1. Р. 292-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.12759/hsr.37.2012.1.292-319
Huntington S. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 1968. 512 p.
Kochubei L. Teoretichne osmislennya polіtichnikh rezhimіv chasіv nezalezhnoї Ukraїni [Theoretical Interpretation of Political Regimes of Independent Times of Ukraine]. – Polіtichna nauka v Ukraїnі 1991-2016 [Political Science in Ukraine. 1991-2016: in 2 vol. Vol. 2. Theoretical and Methodological Foundations and Conceptual Results of National Studies. Ed. by O. Rafalsky, M. Karmazina, O. Mayboroda]. In 2 vol. Vol. 2. Kiev: Parlaments’ke vidavnitstvo. P. 442-451. (In Ukrainian).
Kolodіi A. On the Question of the Political Regime in Ukraine. – Suchasnіst’. 1999. No. 7-8. P. 84-96. (In Ukrainian).
Konończuk W. Oligarchs After The Maidan: The Old System In A “New” Ukraine. – OSW Commentary. No. 162. 16.02.2015. URL: https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/commentary_162_0.pdf (accessed 18.11.2017).
Kuzio T. Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism. Santa Barbara: Praeger. 2015. 611 p.
Kuzio T. Oligarchs, the Partial Reforms Equilibrium, and the Euromaidan Revolution. – Beyond the Euromaidan: Comparative Perspectives on Advancing Reform in Ukraine. Ed. by H.E. Hale, R.W. Orttung. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2016. P. 181-203.
Levitsky S., Way L.A. Competitive Authoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2010. 536 p.
Lust-Okar E. Divided They Rule: The Management and Manipulation of Political Opposition. – Comparative Politics. 2004. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 159-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4150141
Matsiyevsky Yu. Involution of Constitutionalism and Quasi-authoritarian Regime in Ukraine). – Vibori ta demokratіya. 2011. No. 3. P. 49-56. (In Ukrainian).
Matsiyevsky Yu. U pastci gibrydnosti: zyg’zag’y transformacij politychnogo rezhymu v Ukrai’ni (1991-2014) [The Trap of Hybridity: Zigzags of the Transformation of the Political Regime in Ukraine (1991-2014)]. Чернівці: Книги – XXI. 2016. 552 с. (In Ukrainian). URL: http://www.ipiend.gov.ua/uploads/dissertations/Matsievskyi/matsievskyi_dyser.pdf
Matsiyevsky Yu., Kulyk K.V. Verhovna Rada VIII sklykannja: chy vidbulosja jakisne onovlennja? [Verkhovna Rada of the VIII Convocation: Did a Qualitative Upgrade Take Place?]. Ostrog: Centr politychnyh doslidzhen’ Nacional’nogo universytetu “Ostroz’ka akademija”. 2017. 9 p. (In Ukrainian). URL: http://cpr.oa.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Ukraines-parliament-of-VIII-convocation_2017.pdf (accessed 07.12.2017)
Melville A., Mironyuk M. “Bad Enough Governance”: State Capacity and Quality of Institutions in Post-Soviet Autocracies. – Post-Soviet Affairs. Vol. 32. 2016. No. 2. P. 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10 60586X.2015.1052215
Menon R., Rumer E.B. Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2015. 248 p.
Mesquita B. Regime Change and Revolutionary Entrepreneurs. –The American Political Science Review. Vol. 104. 2010. No. 3. P. 446-466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000274
Miller M.K. Democratic Pieces: Autocratic Elections and Democratic Development since 1815. – British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 45. 2015. No. 3. P. 501-530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000446
Møller J. State Formation, Regime Change, and Economic Development. Abingdon; New York: Routledge. 2017. 282 p.
Munck G.L. Disaggregating Political Regime: Conceptual Issues in the Study of Democratization. – The Hellen Kellog Institute for International Studies. Working Paper No 228. 1996. 42 p. URL: https://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/228.pdf (accessed 15.11.2017).
Nort D.C., Wallis J.J., Weingast B.R. Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. (Russ. ed.: Nort D., Wallis J., Weingast B. Nasilie i sotsial’nye poryadki. Kontseptual’nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis’mennoi istorii chelovechestva. Moscow: Institut Gaydara Publ. 2011. 480 p.)
O’Donnell G., Schmitter Ph.C. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1986. 120 p.
Onuch O. Maidans Past and Present: Comparing the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan. – Ukraine’s Euromaidan. Analysis of a Civil Revolution. Ed. by D.R. Marples, F.V. Mills. Stuttgard: Ibidem- Verlag. 2015. P. 27-56.
Pleines H. Oligarchs and Politics in Ukraine. – Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. Vol. 24. 2016. No. 1. P. 105-127.
Polterovich V.M. Institutional Traps: Is There a Way Out? – Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. No. 3. P. 5-16. (In Russ.) URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43126432_Institucionalnye_lovuski_est_li_vyhod(accessed 07.12.2017).
Popova M. Why the Orange Revolution Was Short and Peaceful and Euromaidan Long and Violent. – Problems of Post-Communism. 2014. Vol. 61. No. 6. P. 64-70.
Popular Contention, Regime, and Transition. Arab Revolts in Comparative Global Perspective. Ed. by E.Y. Alimi, A. Sela, M. Sznajder. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016. 384 p.
Regime Change: It’s Been Done Before. Ed. by Gough R. London: Policy Exchange. Clutha House. 2003. 157 p. URL: https://www.policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/regime-change-may-03-1.pdf (accessed 07.04.2017).
Reich G. Categorizing Political Regimes: New Data for Old Problems. – Democratization. 2002. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000289
Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine: The Challenge of Change. Ed. by O. Bertelsen. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag. 2017. 440 p.
Rjabchuk M. Vid “haosu” do “stabil’nosti”: hronika avtorytarnoi’ konsolidacii’ [From Chaos to “Stability”: A Chronicle of Authoritarian Consolidation]. Kiev: K.I.S. 288 p. (In Ukrainian).
Sakwa R. Frontline Ukraine. Crisis in the Borderlands. London; New York: I.B. Tauris. 2016. 320 p.
Schedler A. The Politics of Uncertainty. Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. 512 p.
Skaaning S.-E. Political Regimes and Their Changes: A Conceptual Framework. – CDDRL Working Papers. No. 55. Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University. 2006. 28 p.
Way L. Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2015. 274 p.
Weyland K. The Diffusion of Regime Contention in European Democratization, 1840 –1940. – Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. No. 8-9. P. 1148-1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010370439
Wilson A. Ukraine Crisis: What it Means for the West. Totton, Hampshire: Yale University Press. 2014. 248 p.
Content No. 1, 2018
See also:
Matsiyevsky Yu.V.,
Transformations of the political regime in Ukraine before and after the «Orange revolution»: institutional interpretation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No5
Shevtzova L.F.,
Change of Regime or of the System?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No1
Grinin L.Ye.,
The Russian Revolution and Modernization Traps. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No4
Myasnikov O.G.,
Alternation of Ruling Elites: ''Consolidation or Perpetual Fight?. – Polis. Political Studies. 1993. No1
Pantin I.K.,
«Orange» pills for russian diseases. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6
.jpg)
.jpg)