|
|
Since 1991, Ukraine has experienced dynamic political competition with the growth of a relatively powerful parliament and four turnovers in leadership. Such political contestation has been rooted in the divisions between eastern and western Ukraine, as well as the failure of executives to build single cohesive political parties. The geographic divisions facilitated opposition mobilization, even in the absence of a robust civil society, while undermining centrally directed electoral and media manipulation. Simultaneously, executives have built governing coalitions characterized by a highly atomized and disorganized “rapacious individualism” that promoted elite defection. National divisions and rapacious individualism contributed to the downfall of President Leonid Kravchuk in 1994, Leonid Kuchma in 2004, and two prime ministers and their parties after the Orange Revolution.
An examination of the sources of competition suggests a reform dilemma in Ukraine: divided nationality and rapacious individualism have not only undermined efforts to concentrate political power but have also thwarted reform and effective governance.
The centralization of power that would be required for successful reform is also likely to promote greater authoritarianism.
Barriers to Democracy in Ukraine
There are many reasons why Ukrainian leaders should been able to consolidate autocratic rule after the cold war. Prior to 1991, Ukraine had no history of democracy, and as Marc Howard has argued, the legacy of communism fundamentally weakened civil society by decreasing interpersonal trust and by concentrating resources in state hands.
For free access to the archive, you must be a registered member of BJWA.org
Not a BJWA.org member yet?
Get Free Access
Register for BJWA.org
- Access our archive
- Receive reduced subscription offers & other deals
Registration is free and
only takes a minute! |
Already a BJWA.org member?
Log in now
|
|
