Russia’s Polarized Political Spectrum

Hahn, Gordon M.

doi:10.1080/10758216.1996.11655675

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And yet the party as an institution insists on keeping local government firmly under control, issuing binding directives, influencing appointments and directly interfering in the work of state employees. [...] Soviet local government today still seems trapped by the cultural legacy of the past, and by the ideological underpinnings of the system.« (Hill 1983: 33) Um und vor allem gegenüber den Sowjets zu schwächen (Hahn 1989;Ross 2009: 38ff). Zu den sichtbarsten Maßnahmen gehörte die Einführung zumindest ansatzweise kompetitiver Wahlen in einigen Bezirken, bei denen mehr als ein Kandidat zugelassen wurde (Ross 2009: 41f…”

Section: Teilsysteme Aufgefangen Werden: »[U]nbewältigte Komplexität ...unclassified

Postsowjetische Transformationen in der Weltgesellschaft

Moser¹

2015

Global Studies &Amp; Theory of Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der Zerfall der sowjetischen Organisationsgesellschaft hat vielfältige Veränderungen in Gang gesetzt. Evelyn Moser perspektiviert diese Veränderungen mithilfe der Differenzierungstheorie und der Theorie der Weltgesellschaft. Auf der Grundlage ethnographischer Feldforschung untersucht sie die Umstellungen und Neuordnungen, die sich im Kontext von politischer Dezentralisierung und landwirtschaftlicher Privatisierung vollziehen und die Transformationsgesellschaft im ländlichen Russland kennzeichnen. Zu beobachten ist lokale Kontingenz im Horizont der Weltgesellschaft: Änderungsabsichten müssen Engpässe passieren, Normalitätserwartungen verschieben sich und neue Anschlussmöglichkeiten entstehen.

show abstract

Section: Teilsysteme Aufgefangen Werden: »[U]nbewältigte Komplexität ...unclassified

Postsowjetische Transformationen in der Weltgesellschaft

Moser¹

2015

Global Studies &Amp; Theory of Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 51 See Hahn 1996; and Fish 2001, 226–227. For analogous arguments about the detrimental impact of polarization on economic performance, see Frye 2002.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yeltsin, Putin, and Clinton: Presidential Leadership and Russian Democratization in Comparative Perspective

Rivera¹,

Rivera²

2009

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediately after coming to power, the Clinton administration declared the consolidation of market and democratic institutions in Russia to be a vital American interest. The administration's central tactic for promoting this outcome was to help Boris Yeltsin remain in power. In a major assault on Clinton's historical legacy, much of the scholarly community maintains that U.S. policy was fundamentally flawed, both morally and strategically. In the view of these analysts, post-Soviet Russia's founding president was an autocratic leader who derailed the country's progress toward democracy. However, this body of research focuses exclusively on the Russian Federation and fails to utilize comparative referents. In contrast, we analyze the experiences of the full population of post-communist states of Eastern Europe and Eurasia from 1991 to the present. Whether examined in cross-national or longitudinal perspective, we find that Russian democracy under Yeltsin was, relatively speaking, a success. We conclude that the Clinton administration's policy of support for Yeltsin both served various American foreign policy interests and strengthened the prospects for democratic consolidation in Russia, thereby fulfilling the dictates of both real- and idealpolitik. In addition, the relative success of Russia's democratization in the 1990s, the reversal of that pattern in this decade, and the magnitude of the transformation of the polity under Putin all demonstrate the pivotal role played by presidential leadership in Russia's transition.

show abstract

Gorbachev, ideology, and the fate of Soviet communism

Mitchell

Arrington

2000

Communist and Post-Communist Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collapse of the Soviet Union has spurred much scholarly debate about the reasons for the rapid disintegration of this apparently entrenched system. In this article, it is argued that the basic source of ultimate weakness was the obverse of the system’s strengths, especially its form of organization and its relation to Marxist–Leninist ideology. Democratic centralism provided cohesion for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) but also gave inordinate control over ideology to the party leader. Mikhail Gorbachev carried out an ideological revision that undercut the legitimacy of party elites and his restructuring of the system left the party with no clear functional role in the society. The successor party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), has made a surprising comeback for communism, utilizing the Leninist model of party organization, which has proved to be highly effective in the Russian political culture. Furthermore, the CPRF, under party leaders like Gennadi Zyuganov, has avoided Gorbachev’s ideological deviations while attempting to broaden the party’s base through the cultivation of Russian nationalism.

show abstract

Russia’s Polarized Political Spectrum

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Postsowjetische Transformationen in der Weltgesellschaft

Postsowjetische Transformationen in der Weltgesellschaft

Yeltsin, Putin, and Clinton: Presidential Leadership and Russian Democratization in Comparative Perspective

Gorbachev, ideology, and the fate of Soviet communism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About