У пастці гібридності: зиґзаґи трансформацій політичного режиму в Україні (1991-2014) (Trapped in Hybridity: Zigzags of Ukraine’s Political Regime Transformations (1991-2014)

Мацієвський, Ю. (Yu. Matsiyevskyi) (2016) У пастці гібридності: зиґзаґи трансформацій політичного режиму в Україні (1991-2014) (Trapped in Hybridity: Zigzags of Ukraine’s Political Regime Transformations (1991-2014). Other. Книги – XXI, Чернівці.

[thumbnail of Trapped in Hybridity_Matsiievskyi.pdf] PDF - Published Version
Download (1MB)


Монографія присвячена вивченню траєкторії змін політичного режиму в Україні від здобуття незалежності до Революції гідності. У фокусі уваги – вплив неформальних інститутів, передусім клієнтелізму, непотизму і неформальних угод на поведінку політичних гравців. Вихідна теза дослідження полягає у тому, що неформальні інститути визначили особливості поведінки еліт – від «картельного пакту» на початку незалежності України, до гри не за правилами, як багато хто очікував, а до систематичного порушення принципу верховенства права, що врешті призвело до утвердження неефективної інституційної рівноваги – інституційної пастки. Напівмодернізований стан держави і гібридний тип політичного режиму є проявами системної інституційної пастки. У поясненні взяті до уваги п’ять груп чинників: операційний код політичної культури еліт, практика укладання неформальних угод, інволюція конституціоналізму, структурні обмеження і висока непевність, які разом вливають на поведінку еліт. Їх поєднання у динамічну модель дозволило простежити процес «гібридизації» режиму України, або сповзання країни у пастку гібридності.
(This research explores the path of Ukraine’s political regime transformations in a period from the independence to the Revolution of Dignity. It aims to assess the impact of informal institutions, especially clientelism, nepotism and informal agreements on the behavior of political actors. The research argues that informal institutions have determined the behavior of elites – from the «cartel pact» at the beginning of Ukraine’s independence, to playing not by the rules, as many expected, but with rules that eventually led to the inefficient institutional equilibrium – institutional trap. Undermodernized state and the hybrid type of political regime signify the systemic institutional trap.
Five factors are taken into account: the operational code of elites’ political culture, the practice of informal agreements, devolution of constitutionalism, structural constraints and the high uncertainty. Combining them into a dynamic model allowed tracing the process of «hybridization» of Ukraine’s regime, or the country’s slide into the trap of hybridity.
The research consists of six chapters. The first one lays out the theory. By critically reassessing the existing accounts, the basic concepts (political regime, institutional trap, hybridity, hybridization) are defined.
The second chapter describes the stages of hybridization. The first attempt of establishing the new rules of the game under Leonid Kravchuk failed due to the coincidence of structural, institutional and agency based factors. The attempt to consolidate power by Leonid Kuchma also failed. By demanding an increase in the powers the new president sought to strengthen his formal and informal powers, weaken parliament and prevent the emergence of any group that could threaten his rule. By examining clientelism under Leonid Kuchma we found that the shape of the latter changed from preventive to coercive form. This, however, has not safeguarded him from losing power. Five structural (lack of the own party, failure of power politics, the split within the ruling elite, erosion of legitimacy and western democratic pressure) and two situational factors (personal mistakes before and during the 2004 campaign and mass mobilization from below) contributed to the collapse of the Kuchma’s political machine.
The third chapter seeks to revise the most influential studies of the «Orange Revolution». Taking into account two variables – actors (elites or masses) and the environment (internal or external) four areas of research on the causes, dynamics and the outcomes of the «Orange Revolution» have been identified. These accounts are dubbed here as «theories» of external influences, democratic diffusion, elite splits and mass participation. The essence of 2004 events is defined as the second, after 1991, non-violent rotation of elites (or quasi-replacement in terms of John Highly) that was caused by the mobilization of large numbers of Ukrainians (17.8% according to KIIS).
The fourth chapter argues that the old institutional core composed of informal rules, informal agreements, clientelism and corruption has survived the «Orange Revolution». These institutions continue to operate in political process, structuring the behavior of political actors. In discussing the consequences of the decline of «defective democracy», which is the main theme of the fifth chapter, we put forward the argument of hybridization of the regime under Viktor Yanukovych. Contrary to «the resurgence of authoritarianism» case, the chapter discusses the role of structural factors (such as low economic efficiency, lack of monopoly over the information sphere, lack of professional bureaucracy and the loyalty within coercive agencies, the heterogeneity of Ukrainian society, the presence of competing PEG and in the rejection by the majority Ukrainians the idea of authoritarianism) that brought about hybridization, but not authoritarianisation of the regime.
The last chapter focuses on the effects of regime hybridization: low stability, destructive external pressure and personal mistakes of Viktor Yanukovych initially led to the crisis and consequently to a revolution. The chapter ends by comparing the 2004-2014 events on the basis of eleven, analytically defined attributes of a revolution. Contrary to 2004 events that matched only three out of eleven attributes (elite conflict, mass mobilization and charismatic leadership) the events of 2014 had seven attributes (collapse of the state, external pressure, economic decline, elite conflict, mass mobilization, «multiple sovereignty» and violence) while the other two (the change of political regime and the change of social structure) is theoretically possible. The presence of these attributes allows defining the 2014 events as a political, but not a social revolution.)

Item Type: Monograph (Other)
Uncontrolled Keywords: Україна, політичний режим, гібридний режим, гібридизація, неформальні інститути, клієнтелізм, непотизм, інституційна пастка, структура еліт, інволюція конституціоналізму, політична стабільність, політична криза, революція (Ukraine, political regime, hybrid regime, hybridization, informal institutions, clientelism, nepotism, institutional trap, elite structure, devolution of constitutionalism, political stability, political crisis, revolution)
Subjects: by fields of science > Politics
Divisions: Scientific centre > Center of Political Researches
The College of International Relationship > The Department of Political Science
Depositing User: Галина Цеп'юк
Date Deposited: 13 Sep 2016 09:50
Last Modified: 15 Sep 2016 09:11
URI: https://eprints.oa.edu.ua/id/eprint/4855

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item