DEMOCRATIC RULE OF LAW AND POLITICAL REGIMES (Russia and post-sovet countries)
Authors: Rudenko Victor N.
Number of views: 532
The author develops possible models of political regimes in situations of compatibility/incompatibility of rule of law and democracy, while maintaining liberal approach to the rule of law. Не applies the methodology proposed by Tilly Charles, however, he takes into account three indicators for description of possible models of political types (potential of rule of
law, potential of state, and potential of democracy), instead of two indicators (potential of state and potential of democracy). Based on the proposed approach the author analyses two types of
democratic and four types of undemocratic regimes. As shown in this paper, introduction of an additional indicator allows proper evaluation of the dynamic of political regimes’ change in various countries (compared with Freedom House, etc., methods). The author turns to problems of the rule of law and democracy in Russia and in the independent states that emerged after the disintegration of the USSR. The author, using these three above-mentioned indicators, argues that the conclusions made by today’s political science about the current process of de-democratization of political regime in Russia after 1995 are not compelling. He also argues that the political regime in Russia was not democratically oriented before, as well as after 1995. It remains the regime with inadequate potential of the rule of law. The only thing that changed after the disintegration of the
Soviet Union is the type of non-democratic political regime. The author underlines that the main course for development of Russia and post-Soviet countries should be democratic political regimes
based on the idea of democratic rule of law. However, the development of Russia and some other countries (Azerbaijan, Belarus and the countries of Central Asia) in this direction has faced with challenges in proper interpretation of democratic rule of law. Among these challenges the author mentions anti-Western sentiment and relativistic approach to human rights and democracy; identification of rule of law with rule by law; instrumentalist approach to law; para-constitutional
practices. He ties the progress toward democratic regimes with overcoming these challenges and achieving the situation of compatibility of high potentials of rule of law, state, and democracy.