In the mirror of transitology: The politics of power alternation in the Caucasus and Central Asia

In 2021 the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus celebrate the 30th anniversary of independence. According to the paradigm of transitology, the political development of a state since the departure from the authoritarian regime entails progressive liberalization and democratization of political processes. And, in accordance with the predominant theoretical approaches, the post-Soviet states were expected to follow this path. However, a closer look at the specifi c scenarios of power alternation in the Central Asia and the South Caucasus provides a much more mixed picture: here the change of ruling elites took very diff erent forms and shapes. The choice of scenario for the transfer of power was always determined by a complex combination of internal and external factors, including the nature and characteristics of the political system of a particular state, its ethnic com-position, the socio-economic situation and external environment. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern several key scenarios: a ‘revolutionary’ scenario, which implies a violent change of power; an intra-elite consensus; transition of power to a successor; a hereditary transmission of power; democratic elections; a resigna-tion of a president. A comparative analysis of the political processes unfolding in the region over the past 30 years shows that even institutionally the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus are not ready yet for a competition policy. 
Moreover, the latter is generally viewed by their leaders as a threat to both the stability of the state and to the interests of the ruling elites. To this may be added the expansion of diff erent informal, archaic political practices across the post-Soviet space. The latter include the sacralization of power, when national interests are equated with the interests of the ruling clan and the whole national identity is built up around this nexus. All this shows the limits of classical transitology theory when it comes to political transformations in the post-Soviet space, which it is unable to explain, yet alone to predict their possible future development. Thus, there is a strong need to develop new theoretical frameworks that would better accommodate particularities of the regional political systems.

1. Arzumanyan H.V. 2019. Barkhatnaya revolyutsiya v Armenii: vyzovy i vozmozhnosti [Velvet revolution in Armenia: Challenges and opportunities]. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 223–230. DOI: 10.18500/1818-9601-2019-19-2-223-230. (In Russ.)

2. Bolponova A. 2015. Politicheskie klany Kyrgyzstana: istoriya i sovremennost’ [Political clans of Kyrgyzstan: Past and present]. Central Asia and the Caucasus, vol. 18, no. 3–4, pp. 59–72. (In Russ.)

3. Borisov N.A. 2005. Transformatsiya politicheskogo rezhima v Uzbekistane: etapy i itogi [Transformation of political regime in Uzbekistan: Stages and outcomes]. Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 6, pp. 25–35. (In Russ.)

4. Vasil’eva O.V. 2018. Politicheskie elity Turkmenistana i problemy natsional’noi identichnosti [Political elites of Turkmenistan and the problems of national identity]. The Caspian region: Politics, economics, culture, no. 4 (57), pp. 200–206. (In Russ.)

5. Igbaev R.B. 2009. Etapy i osobennosti stanovleniya instituta prezidentskoi vlasti v Respublike Kazakhstan [Stages and features of formation of the institute of presidential power in the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Bulletin of the Bashkir State University, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 938–943. (In Russ.)

6. Karl T.L., Shmitter F. 2004. Demokratizatsiya: Kontsepty, postulaty, gipotezy. Razmyshleniya po povodu primenimosti tranzitologicheskoi paradigmy pri izuchenii postkommunisticheskikh transformatsii [Concepts, assumptions and hypotheses about democratization (refl ections on applicability of the transitological paradigm for the study of post-communist transformations)]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 6–27. (In Russ.)

7. Karozers T. 2003. Konets paradigmy tranzita [The end of the transition paradigm]. Political Science, no. 2, pp. 42–65. (In Russ.)

8. Karsakov I. 1998. Osobenosti transformatsii politicheskoi sistemy Kazakhstana v kontse 80-kh — seredine 90-kh [Features of the transformation of political system in Kazakhstan in the late 80s — mid 90s]. Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 14. (In Russ.)

9. Kakharov D. 2003. Privatizatsiya v Uzbekistane: sravnenie s perekhodnymi ekonomikami stran Tsentral’noi i Vostochnoi Evropy [Privatization in Uzbekistan: A comparison with the transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe]. Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 5, pp. 214–220. (In Russ.)

10. Linetskii A.V. 2010. Tranzitologiya — mesto i rol’ v sovremennoi politicheskoi nauke [Transitology — the place and role in modern political science]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, no. 2, pp. 40–46. (In Russ.)

11. Mel’vil’ A.Yu. 2007. Demokraticheskie tranzity [Democratic transitions]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ. (In Russ.)

12. Mel’vil’ A.Yu. 2004. Stanovlenie transnatsional’noi politicheskoi sredy i ‘volny’ demokratizatsii [The emergence of a transnational political environment and ‘waves’ of democratization]. In: Torkunov A.V. (ed.). Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika [Contemporary international relations and world politics]. Moscow, Prosveshchenie Publ., pp. 106–142. (In Russ.)

13. Nasibova A.S. 2019. Ot A. Mutalibova k G. Alievu: formirovanie vneshnei politiki nezavisimogo Azerbaidzhana [From A. Mutalibov to G. Aliyev: Formation of foreign policy of independent Azerbaijan]. Izvestiya of Saratov University. History. International Relations, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 81–86. DOI: 10.18500/1819- 4907-2019-19-1-81-86. (In Russ.)

14. Nemchinova T.S. 2012. Problema kontseptual’nogo razvitiya demokratii v kontekste chetvertoi volny demokratizatsii [The problem of conceptual development of democracy in the context of the fourth democratization wave]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 206–213. (In Russ.)

15. North D.C. 2009. Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press [Russ. ed.: Nort D. 2011. Nasilie i sotsial’nye poryadki. Kontseptual’nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis’mennoi istorii chelovechestva. Moscow, Gaidar Institute Publ.].

16. Nuriev Eh. 2006. Parlamentskie vybory-2005 v Azerbaidzhane: faktory vliyaniya [Parliamentary elections-2005 in Azerbaijan: Infl uence factors]. Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 1 (43), pp. 42–51. (In Russ.)

17. Patrushev S.V. 2001. Institutsionalizm v politicheskoi nauke: ehtapy, techeniya, idei, problemy [Institutionalism in political science: Stages, currents, ideas, problems]. Political Science, no. 2, pp. 149–189. (In Russ.)

18. Gulyaeva A.G., Myalenko Yu.V., Borisova N.V. (eds.). 2014. Preemniki i preemnichestvo v sovremennoi politike: Rossiya i mir v sravnitel’noi perspektive [Successors and succession in contemporary politics: Russia and the world in a comparative perspective]. Perm’. (In Russ.)

19. Pritchin S.A. 2020. Osobennosti tranzita vlasti v Kyrgyzstane i Gruzii v usloviyakh formiruyushchikhsya politicheskikh institutov [Features of the transit of power in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia in the context of emerging political institutions]. Journal of Political Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 14–23. DOI: 10.12737/2587-6295-2020-14-23. (In Russ.)

20. Semenova T.N. 2014. O formakh perekhoda gosudarstvennoi vlasti v sovremennom globaliziruyushchem mire [On the forms of transition of state power in the 21st century]. Philosophy and Society, no. 2, pp. 78–91. (In Russ.)

21. Khlyupin V. 2001. Sovremennyi Kazakhstan: Izderzhki obreteniya nezavisimosti [Modern Kazakhstan: The cost of independence]. CIS yearbook. (In Russ.)

22. Chernomorova T.V. 2003. Uzbekistan: svoi put’ privatizatsii [Uzbekistan: Its own way of privatization]. In: Vinogradov V.A. (ed.). Privatizatsiya v Rossii i drugikh stranakh SNG [Privatization in Russia and other CIS countries]. Moscow, INION RAS Publ., pp. 189–211. (In Russ.)

23. Beyme K. 1996. Transition to democracy in Eastern Europe. London, Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230374331.

24. Bunce V. 2000. Comparative democratization: Big and bounded generalizations. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 6–7, pp. 703–734.

25. Bunce V. 1999. Subversive institutions: The design and the destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511816178.

26. Haggard S., Kaufman R.R. 1995. The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

27. Huntington S.P. 1991. The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

28. King C. 2001. Potemkin democracy: Four myths about post-Soviet Georgia. The National Interest, no. 64, pp. 93–104.

29. Linz J., Stepan A. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

30. Mahoney J. 2000. Knowledge accumulation in comparative historical analysis: The case of democracy and authoritarianism. In: Mahoney J., Rueschemeyer D. (eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Harvard, pp. 131–174.

31. McFaul M. 2001. The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco.

32. O’Donnell G., Schmitter P.C. 1986. Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

33. Valenzuela J.S. 1992. Democratic consolidation in post-transitional settings: Notions, process, and facilitating conditions. In: Mainwaring S., O’Donnell G., Valenzuela J.S. (eds.). Issues in democratic consolidation: The new South American democracies in comparative perspective. Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 239–250.

34. Waldron-Moore P. 1999. Eastern Europe at the crossroads of democratic transition. Comparative political studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 32–62.