Presidentialism and Regime Type in Russia and Post-Soviet Countries

Abstract

The academic field of post-Soviet studies in political science currently suffers several conceptual and empirical gaps because of the predominance of single-country focus as well as the lack of cross-national comparisons (Meleshevich 2007). These countries represents an interesting and challenging field of research to improve our knowledge of post-communist transitional societies. In particular, we do not know why 11 of the 15 units which composed the Soviet Union chose a presidential form of government, but with some differences concerning the power of their presidents, their adaptation to presidentialism, and political stability (Blondel 2012, 2015). On a general level, the panel aims to examine to what extent presidential politics and the presidential regime type as such matter to political outcomes and to the level of authoritarianism in the post-Soviet sphere. Paper proposals on the following relevant dimensions of analyses on presidentialism are welcome: 1) party-president relations: do presidents share power with a ruling party (dominant party or party of power) to get popular support? Do presidents rule solely by using patronage, coercion, and charisma? 2) veto and decree powers: to what extent have post-Soviet presidents used their constitutional veto and decree powers? Are there any differences between Russia and other post-Soviet countries in these regards? 3) political leadership: does the personality-centred politics create favourable conditions for presidential activism? In what ways do the (formal and informal) rules and procedures influence, constrain and determine the behaviour of political actors? Are there any significant differences in presidential leadership among these states? 4) Presidentialism, post-Soviet style: is the Russian system de facto so presidential that it can be discussed in the same general terms as the American or other "strong" presidential arrangements? Are the post-Soviet republics a specific case? What virtues (opportunities) and vices (risks) do these presidential systems represent for political development? The papers could be of a theoretical or empirical nature, and include comparative or case oriented approaches.