Published May 25, 2025 | Version v1
Conference paper Open

REGIME TRANSITION, PATH DEPENDENCY AND COMPLEXITIES OF DEMOCRATIZATION IN CENTRAL ASIA

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Prof. Dr. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Türkiye

Description

The studies of regime transition have gained notable prominence in political
science particularly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Considerable interests
towards democratic governance resulted in a kind of literature boom with trajectory arguments in
the political transitions of the newly independent states of Soviet Union. Optimistic expectations
for a new wave of democratization soon gave way to concerns regarding the resilience and
perseverance of authoritarianism and to a conceptual and theoretical testing and questioning
process for comparative studies. This study focuses on the regime transition of five Central
Asian republics by paying attention to similarities and differences as they share a common
history, yet they have embarked on distinct paths of political transition since gaining
independence. The study aims to provide an overview of the transition process with references to
historical legacy, factors of path dependency, challenges, and prospects of democratization. It
will examine key themes and debates within the existing scholarly work, highlighting the
complex and often restrained nature of transitions in this strategically important region. It will
encompass the complexities of democratization by including an examination of the country-
specific trajectories, the key challenges and obstacles in a comparative regional perspective.

Files

19-27.pdf

Files (375.6 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:c83ba62a3b06ce5124dd3e4387c49b79
375.6 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • 1. Anderson, J. Corruption in Central Asia: A Power Perspective. "Central Asian Survey". 2003.-No 22(2-3), P.237-263. 2. Bertsch, G. K., Ziegler, C. E. Tajikistan: Political Economy and Regime Consolidation. "Central Asian Studies Review".2008. 3. Carothers, T. The End Of The Transition Paradigm. "Journal of Democracy".2002.-13(1), P.5-21. 4. Collins, K. Clan Politics And Regime Transition In Central Asia. "Journal of Democracy".2006.- 17(3), 122-136. 5. Cooley, A. Great Games, Local Rules: The New Great Power Contest in Central Asia. Oxford University Press.2012. 6. Dagiev. D. Regime Transition in Central Asia: Stateness, Nationalism and Political Change in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Routledge, 2014. 7. Diamond, L. Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. "Journal of Democracy".2002.-13(2), 21-35. 8. Hale, H. E. Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics İn Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2014. 9. Howard, M. M., Roessler, P. G. Liberalized Autocracy. "Journal of Democracy". 2006.- 17(4), P.100-113. 10. Huntington, S. P. The Third Wave: Democratization In The Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press. 1991. 11. Ishiyama, J. T. The Post-Communist States: A Comparative Study Of Democratization, Nation-Building And Governance. Edinburgh University Press.2012. 12. Izquierdo-Brichs, F. Neopatrimonialism, Power and Regimes in Central Asia: A Sociology of Power Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. 2021. 13. Junisbai, B., Junisbai, A. 2005. The Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan: A Case Study in Economic Liberalization, Intra-Elite Cleavage and Political Opposition, "Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization".2005.-13 (2), P. 373-392. 14. Karl, T. L. The Perils of the Petro-State: Reflections on the Paradox of Plenty. "Journal of International Affairs". 1999.-53, P. 31-48. 15. Laruelle, M. Central Peripheries, Nationhood in Central Asia. UCL Press. 2021. 16. Levitsky, S., Way, L. A., Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After The Cold War. Cambridge University Press. 2010. 17. Luong, P. J. The Transformation Of Central Asia: States And Societies From Soviet Rule To Independence. Cornell University Press. 2004. 18. McFaul, M. The Fourth Wave Of Democracy And The "Colored Revolutions". "Orbis", 2002.-49(4), P.613-635. 19. Merkel, W. Embedded and Defective Democracies. "Democratization".2004.- 11(5), P.33- 58. 20. O'Donnell, G. A. Illusions About Consolidation. "Journal of Democracy".1996- 7(2), P.34- 51. 21. Olcott, M. B. Central Asia's Second Chance. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.2002. 22. Olcott, M. B. Democracy And State Building In Central Asia: Challenges For U.S. Policy- Makers. Demokratizatsiya. "The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization". 2002.-10(1), P.51-69. 23. Radnitz, S. What Went Wrong in Central Asia?. "Journal of Democracy". 2010.- 21(4), P.118-132. 24. Ruiz-Ramas, R., Morales Hernández, J., The Central Asian Model of the Neopatrimonial State. In Political Regimes and Neopatrimonialism in Central Asia: A Sociology of Power Perspective (pp. 119–138). Palgrave Macmillan.2021. 25. Shamsutdinov, S. The Political Economy of Clientelism in Tajikistan. "Central Asian Journal of Political Studies".2018.- 12(4), P.56-75. 26. Schatz, E. Islam And The State İn Central Asia: A Post-Soviet Puzzle. "Central Asian Survey". 2006.- 25(2), P.109-126. 27. Siddique, A. The Authoritarian Developmental State in Uzbekistan. "Europe-Asia Studies". 2009.-61(6), P.1013-1036. 28. Siegel, D. Decentralization, Legitimacy, and Democracy in Post-Soviet Central Asia. "Journal of Eurasian Studies".2021.-13 (1), P.66-81. 29. Sullivan, M. The Politics of Patronage in Central Asia. "International Politics". 2013.-50 (1), P.11-34. 30. Treacher. A. Political Evolution in Post-Soviet Central Asia. "Democratization". 1996.-3 (3), P.306-327. 31. Trenin, D. Post-imperium: A Eurasian Story. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.2011.