Abstract
The chapter brings together various new insights contained in the individual chapters, to draw from them a number of important conclusions regarding to the role of the Russian, Belarusian, and Kazakh Presidents in party politics and its presidentialization. The analysis of the political systems of these three countries shows that, in each of these states, party politics gradually became a prisoner of presidential personalist regimes albeit in varying degrees. A key indicator is the role of the “party of power”, the party of the head of state, in the political system. This role varied dramatically in the post-Soviet states. In Russia and Kazakhstan, where the dominant-party systems have been established, the United Russia and Nur Otan parties have become essential instruments of controlling the ruling elite over political and public life. But the presidentialization of the “party of power” cannot be considered as an autonomous political phenomenon or as a general political trend. It is only a distorted reflection of the political practice of a personalistic authoritarian regime. In Belarus, however, due to the specifics of Lukashenko’s regime of personal power, attempts to create a “party of power” were unsuccessful, and the President chose to rule without reliance on such a party, which led to the marginalization of party politics and inter-party struggles. The presence of other parties of the so-called systemic (loyal) opposition and regular elections helps authoritarian leaders in post-Soviet countries to simulate compliance to democratic norms, gives the illusion of party competition, and lends legitimacy to ruling regimes. It changes the nature of parties as participants in the political process and turns them into pseudo-parties that do not aim at winning elections, gaining power, protecting the interests of some social strata, and implementing clearly formulated ideological objectives or program guidelines. Party systems become dependent and secondary to informal power structures and to personalist regimes. Thus, in post-Soviet states, the presidentialization of party politics can be adequately understood only taking into account the political environment in which it exists.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The office of the presidency in Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia is largely ceremonial, although the parliamentary system was established in Georgia only in 2018. Unlike Armenia and Georgia, the President of Moldova is directly elected; nevertheless, he is basically a figurehead.
- 2.
1 We use this term to define the Western part of the former USSR without the Baltic States, that is, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus.
- 3.
According to Volgin, during the 2000s, “electoral competition was gradually replaced by a system of distribution between loyal parties of various benefits (votes, parliamentary mandates, state financing, information resources and even licenses for party activities in the form of state registration of parties)” (Volgin, 2015: 216–217).
- 4.
For a different classification of Russian political parties, see Oversloot and Verheul (2006: 391–393).
- 5.
For more information, see March (2009: 504–527).
- 6.
- 7.
“Russian centrism”, writes Anna Anufrieva, “is rather an instrument of consolidation of the ‘political class’ around the state” (Anufrieva, 2010: 34).
- 8.
“Society has actually abandoned parties as a tool for realizing the goals and interests of large social groups” (Moskvin, 2003: 117).
- 9.
The concept introduced by Christopher Ansell and Stephen Fish (Ansell & Fish, 1999: 283–312).
- 10.
On the causes of the decline in the popularity of the Yabloko and its marginalization in the first half of the 2000s, see: White (2006).
- 11.
For more information about the motives for the creation of the United Russia party and its functions in the Russian political system, see: Roberts (2012).
- 12.
The practice of including the names of deceased people in the list of party members.
- 13.
“Political parties in Kazakhstan”, writes Andreas Heinrich, “generally tend to be weakly organized with centralized decision-making structures and few participating members. They lack funding as well as organizational and communicational infrastructure. Political parties are mostly centred on a small group of elite actors or a charismatic personality and tend to lack issue-based platforms, a party programme, a coherent ideology or an easily identifiable electorate” (Heinrich, 2010: 32).
- 14.
“The law on political parties 2002”, writes Mukesh Kumar Mishra, “has achieved the intended objective of disbursing and legalising power through pro- regime parties, thereby pushing out both existing and potential opposition. The number of registered parties fell from 19 in late 2002 to 8 in November” (Mishra, 2009: 321).
- 15.
For details, see Isaacs (2020: 378–380).
- 16.
For details, see Isaacs (2013: 1055–1079).
References
Ansell, C. K., & Fish, M. S. (1999). The art of being indispensable: Noncharismatic personalism in contemporary political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 32(3), 283–312.
Anufrieva, A. (2010). Spetsifika partijnogo mekhanizma ideologicheskoj i mobilizatsionnoj podderzhki vlastnogo kursa v Rossii. Vlast’, 12, 32–35.
Arkadyev, A. (2008). Belarus: The case of unsuccessful semi-presidentialism (1994–1996). In R. Elgie & S. Moestrup (Eds.), Semi-Presidentialism in central and Eastern Europe (pp. 14–31). Manchester University Press.
Bader, M. (2011). Hegemonic political parties in post-Soviet Eurasia: Towards party-based authoritarianism? Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(3), 189–197.
Bittner, A. (2011). Platform or personality?: The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford University Press.
Bowyer, A. C. (2008). Parliament and political parties in Kazakhstan. Washington (DC): Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program. https://www.silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2008_05_SRP_Bowyer_Parliament-Kazakhstan.pdf
Charnysh, V., & Kulakevich, T. (2017). Belarusian political parties: Organizational structures and practices. In Katarzyna Sobolewska-Myślik, Beata Kosowska-Gąstoł and Piotr Borowiec,Organizational structures of political parties in Central andEastern European Countries (Eds.). (pp. 41–58). Jagiellonian University Press.
Datskov, S. A. (2009). Sovremennaya funktsional’nost’ rossijskikh politicheskikh partij. Izvestiya Saratovskogo Universiteta: Seriya Sotsiologiya. Politologiya, 9(4), 117–120.
Del Sordi, A. (2016). Legitimation and the party of power in Kazakhstan. In M. Brusis, J. Ahrens, & M. S. Wessel, (Eds.), Politics and legitimacy in Post-Soviet Eurasia, (pp. 72–96). Palgrave Macmillan.
Dorozhkin, Yu. N., & Damindarova, F. V. (2015). Partii v sovremennoj Rossii: Real’nye politicheskie aktory ili ikh imitatsiya? Vlast’, 22(11), 92–97.
Dyakina, O. (2021, August 3). Shest’ klanov iz okruzheniya Putina boryutsya za kontrol’ nad Gosdumoj. URA.RU. https://ura.news/articles/1036282772
Egorov, A. N. (2008). Mnogopartijnaya sistema Respubliki Belarus’: Problemy formirovaniya i razvitiya. Vestnik Belorusskogo Gosudarstvennogo Ekonomicheskogo Universiteta, 2, 96–104.
Eke, S. M., & Kuzio, T. (2000). Sultanism in Eastern Europe: The socio-political roots of authoritarian populism in Belarus. Europe-Asia Studies, 52(3), 523–547.
Elgie, R. (2008). The perils of semi-presidentialism. Are they exaggerated? Democratization, 15(1), 49–66.
Elgie, R., & Passarelli, G. (2019). Presidentialisation: One term, two uses—between deductive exercise and grand historical narrative. Political Studies Review, 17(2), 115–123.
Epifanov, A. S., & Rastimeshina, T. V. (2015). Effektivnost’ vliyaniya politicheskikh partij Rossii na protsessy politicheskogo upravleniya. Ekonomicheskie i Social’no-Gumanitarnye Issledovaniya, 3(7), 94–100.
European Parliament Research Service. (2014). Russia: political parties in a ‘managed democracy’. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2014/545703/EPRS_ATA(2014)545703_REV1_EN.pdf
Feduta, A., Boguckij, O., and Martinovič, V. (2003). Politische Parteien in Belarus als notwendiger Bestandteil der Zivilgesellschaft: Seminardokumentation. Minsk: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/belarus/07072.pdf
Fortunatov, V. V. (2009). Novejshaya istoriya Rossii v litsakh: 1917–2008. Piter.
Gel’man, V. (2006). From ‘feckless pluralism’ to ‘dominant power politics’: The transformation of Russia’s party system. Democratization, 13(4), 545–561.
Heinrich, A. (2010). The formal political system in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan: A background study (Arbeitspapiere und Materialien / Forschungsstelle Osteuropa an der Universität Bremen 107). Bremen: Forschungsstelle Osteuropa an der Universität Bremen. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/44135/ssoar-2010-heinrich-The_formal_political_system_in.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2010-heinrich-The_formal_political_system_in.pdf
Isaacs, R. (2009). Between informal and formal politics: Neopatrimonialism development in post-Soviet Kazakhstan: Ph.D. thesis. Oxford Brookes University.
Isaacs, R. (2013). Nur Otan, informal networks and the countering of elite instability in Kazakhstan: Bringing the ‘Formal’ back in. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(6), 1055–1079.
Isaacs, R. (2020). The role of party interest articulation in the personalist-authoritarian regimes of the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. Problems of Post-Communism, 67(4–5), 375–387.
Isaacs, R., & Whitmore, S. (2014). The limited agency and life-cycles of personalized dominant parties in the post-Soviet space: The cases of United Russia and Nur Otan. Democratization, 21(4), 699–721.
Kadyrzhanov, R. (2014). Party system formation in Kazakhstan: Between formal and informal politics. Central Asian Survey, 33(2), 291–293.
Kanapyanov, T. Y., & Kaliyev, N. K. (2015). Parliamentary Reforms of 2007 and One Party Dominated Parliament of Kazakhstan (2007–2012). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6), 335–340.
Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalisation of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. ECPR Press.
Kunov, A., Myagkov, M., Sitnikov, A., &Shakin, D. (2005). Putin’s ‘Party of Power’ and the declining power of parties in Russia. Foreign Policy Centre. Available at files.ethz.ch/isn/23677/Putins_Party_Power.pdf
Lipman, M., & Petrov, N. (2012). Rossiya-2020: Stsenarii razvitiya: Working Paper 1. Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center.
Mäkinen, S. (2009). Parties in Russia: From Pseudo-system towards Fragmentation: Briefing Paper 34. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Available at https://www.fiia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/upi_briefing_paper_34_2009.pdf
Mamashuly, A. (2016). Zharmakhan Tuyakbaj. Lider ‘edinstvennoj oppozicionnoj partii’. Radio Azattyk (February 22). Available at https://rus.azattyq.org/a/zharmakan-tuyakbay-osdp/27561918.html
Malfliet, K. (2011). The communist party of the Russian federation: Not communist per se. Revue D’études Comparatives Est-Ouest, 42(1), 37–63.
Minchenko Consulting. (2017). Politbyuro 2.0: renovatsiya vmesto demontazha. Sokrashchennaya versiya. https://minchenko.ru/netcat_files/userfiles/2/Dokumenty/Yubileynyy_doklad_22.08.17.pdf
March, L. (2009). Managing opposition in a hybrid regime: Just Russia and parastatal opposition. Slavic Review, 68(3), 504–527.
McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571–588). Oxford University Press.
Mishra, M. K. (2009). Democratisation process in Kazakhstan: Gauging the indicators. India Quarterly, 65(3), 313–327.
Molokova, M. A. (2010). Stanovlenie i razvitie oppozitsionnykh partij v sovremennoj Rossii. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 338, 57–63.
Moskvin, D. E. (2003). Psevdoavtonomiya Politicheskikh Partij v Rossii. Diskurs-Pi, 3, 116–117.
Narodnaya programma partii ‘Edinaya Rossiya’: “Za blagopoluchie i dostojnuyu zhizn’ lyudej. Za sil’nuyu i uspeshnuyu Rossiyu”. (2021). https://er.ru/media/documents/August2021/L4Sk4t74UXKF1MG1oFjh.pdf
Oversloot, H., & Verheul, R. (2006). Managing democracy: Political parties and the state in Russia. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3), 383–405.
Passarelli, G. (Ed.). (2015a). The presidentialization of political parties. Palgrave Macmillan.
Passarelli, G. (2015b). Parties’ genetic features: The missing link in the presidentialization of parties. In G. Passarelli (Ed.), The presidentialization of political parties: Organizations, institutions and leaders (pp. 1–10). Palgrave Macmillan.
Passarelli, G. (2020). The presidential party: A theoretical framework for comparative analysis. Political Studies Review, 18(1), 87–107.
Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (2005). The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford University Press.
Popova, Yu.V. (2020). ‘Edinaya Rossiya’ kak opornyj institut personalistskogo rezhima. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya ‘Istoricheskie nauki’ 7 (3): 87–95.
Programma vserossijskoj partii ‘Edinstvo i Otechestvo’ – Edinaya Rossiya. (2001). https://minjust.gov.ru/uploaded/files/programmavserossiyskoypoliticheskoypartiiedinayarossiya.doc
Pshizova, S. N. (2007). Politika kak biznes: Rossijskaya versiya (II). Polis, 3, 65–77.
Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalisation(s) of Politics: Israel 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24(1), 65–80.
Roberts, S. P. (2012). Putin’s United Russia party. Routledge.
Romanovsky, I.F. (2007). Sovremennye politicheskie partii Belarusi: genezis, dinamika razvitiya, problemy. In U. K. Korshuk (Ed.). Pratsy gistarychnaga fakul’teta BDU, No. 2, (pp. 185–188). BDU.
Sakwa, R. (2012). Party and power: Between representation and mobilisation in contemporary Russia. East European Politics, 28(3), 310–327.
Sakwa, R. (2021). Russian politics and society (5th ed.). Routledge.
Samuels, D. J. (2002). Presidentialized parties: The separation of powers and party organization and behavior. Comparative Political Studies, 35(4), 461–483.
Samuels, D. J., & Shugart, M. S. (2010). Presidents, parties and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Sen’shin, E. (2021, December 1). Partiya nomenklaturnoj restavratsii. Kak ‘Edinoj Rossii’ udaetsya uderzhivat’ vlast’ tak dolgo? Interv’yu s Dmitriem Oreshkinym. Republik. https://republic.ru/posts/102485?utm_source=republic.ru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morning
Shashkova, Ya.Yu. (2019). Transformatsii rossijskoj partijnoj sistemy v kontekste global’nykh tendentsij partogeneza. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya, 47, 189–199.
Shpak, K. (2020, December 3). ‘Novym lyudyam’ napomnili ikh mesto. Kampaniyu vozglavil polittekhnolog Minchenko. Sobesednik. https://sobesednik.ru/politika/20201203-novym-lyudyam-napomnili-ih-mes
Silitski, V. (2003). Explaining post-communist authoritarianism in Belarus. In E. A. Korosteleva, C. W. Lawson, & R. J. Marsh (Eds.), Contemporary Belarus: between democracy and dictatorship (pp. 36–52). Routledge.
Trofimov, E. A. (2014). Subinstitutsionalizatsiya politicheskikh partij v Rossii. Teoriya i Praktika Obshchestvennogo Razvitiya, 19, 108–110.
Ustav KPRF. (1993). https://kprf.ru/party/charter.
Ustav Politicheskoj partii LDPR – Liberal’no-demokraticheskoj partii Rossii. (2016b). https://minjust.gov.ru/uploaded/files/ustavldprliberalnodemokraticheskoypartiirossii30032016b.doc
Ustav Politicheskoj partii “Spravedlivaya Rossiya: Rodina/Pensionery/Zhizn”. (2013). https://priemnaya.duma.gov.ru/ru/info/inf/str/fr/sr/sr_ustav/
Ustav obshchestvennogo ob’edineniya “Partiya Nur Otan”. (2013). https://www.a-tranzit.kz/files/Nur%20Otan/Ustav%20partii%20NҰR%20OTAN.pdf
Ustav Vserossijskoj politicheskoj partii “Edinaya Rossiya”. (2021). https://minjust.gov.ru/ru/pages/programma-i-ustav-vserossijskoj-politicheskoj-partii-edinaya-rossiya/
V Kazakhstane ob‘edinilis’ dve partii. (2013, April 26). Regnum. https://regnum.ru/news/society/1653801.html.
Volgin, E. I. (2015). Politicheskie partii Rossii v nachale novogo veka. Gosudarstvennoe Upravlenie, 51, 213–239.
Vstrecha s liderom LDPR Vladimirom Zhirinovskim. (2018, December 25). Prezident Rossii. https://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59514
White, D. (2006). The Russian democratic party yabloko: Opposition in a managed democracy. Ashgate.
Yurij Dud’ mozhet stat’ liderom oppozitsii v dva shchelchka pal’tsami. (2020, January 6). Fontanka.ru. https://www.fontanka.ru/2020/01/06/012/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krivushin, I., Glaser, M. (2023). The Presidentialization of Political Parties in Post-soviet States: Theoretical Challenges. In: Glaser, M., Krivushin, I., Morini, M. (eds) The Presidentialization of Political Parties in Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Palgrave Studies in Presidential Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25977-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25977-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25976-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25977-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)