The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.
The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.
The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.
The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.
Представлено мнение автора о кризисе либеральной демократии. Проводится различие между современным и предыдущими ее кризисами. Рассматривается становление авторитарных режимов нового типа, выделяются их характерные особенности. Утверждается, что, в отличие от авторитаризма прошлого века, прочность авторитарных режимов нынешнего столетия основывается не на применении насилия, а на сохранении поддержки избирателей. Отмечается, что социальные источники данной поддержки имеют не только экономический, но и культурный характер, обусловлены разрушением демократических институтов. Сформулирован вывод о необходимости проведения реформ институтов представительной демократии, а также изменения социально-экономической и образовательной политики, призванных снизить угрозу краха либеральной демократии. ; The article presents the author's opinion about the crisis of liberal democracy and highlights the distinction between the current crisis of liberal democracy and its previous appearances. Author considers the formation of new authoritarian regimes and defines their characteristic features. In contrast to authoritarian regimes of the last century, the strength of authoritarian regimes of the new century is based not on the use of violence, but on maintaining the electoral support. The social sources of this support are not only economic, but also cultural, and are connected to the destruction of democratic institutions. Author concludes that reforms of the institutions of representative democracy and changes in social, economic and educational policies can reduce the threat of collapse of liberal democracy.
Relatively recently, students of authoritarianism have not paid much attention to institutions. It was believed that since authoritarian rule is generally an arbitrariness, its institutionalism is not really important. Modern approach, however, is that institutions in authoritarian regimes are no less important than in a democracy. This is also applicable to such a political institution traditionally associated with democracy as elections. Recent works on comparative authoritarianism provide more evidence that holding election may help autocrats to survive. Starting from the "third wave" of democratization, the political regimes of "electoral authoritarianism," that means regimes that are authoritarian in nature, but successfully implementing initially democratic political institutions including elections, are becoming more widespread. The regular holding of moderately competitive elections is characteristic of two the most important types of electoral authoritarianism, both hegemonic and competitive authoritarian regimes. This article attempts to generalize and systematize the conceptual views available in literature on the elections role in authoritarian regimes. Four main functions of authoritarian elections are identified and analyzed: legitimation, display of strength, co-optation and information acquisition. ; Еще сравнительно недавно исследователи авторитаризма не уделяли серьезного внимания институтам. Считалось, что поскольку авторитарная власть – это по большей части произвол, ее институциональное оформление не имеет большого значения. Современный подход, однако, заключается в том, что институты в авторитарных режимах не менее важны, чем при демократии. Это относится и к такому традиционно ассоциируемому с демократией политическому институту, как выборы. Последние работы по сравнительному авторитаризму дают все больше подтверждений того, что проведение выборов может способствовать выживанию автократов. Начиная с «третьей волны» демократизации все большее распространение получают политические режимы «электорального авторитаризма», т.е. режимы, авторитарные по своей природе, однако успешно имплементирующие исходно демократические политические институты, в том числе выборы. Регулярное проведение умеренно конкурентных выборов характерно для обеих важнейших разновидностей электорального авторитаризма – как гегемонистских, так и конкурентных авторитарных режимов. В настоящей статье предпринимается попытка обобщить и систематизировать имеющиеся в литературе концептуальные представления о роли выборов в авторитарных режимах. Выделяются и анализируются четыре основные функции авторитарных выборов: легитимация, демонстрация силы, кооптация и сбор информации.
The purpose of the research was to analyze the phenomenon of the new authoritarianism in the XXIth century. New authoritarianism has a similarity with the classic authoritarian regimes of past eras, but also it has significant differences with them. The author captures the growth of authoritarian tendencies in the modern world and the resulting attempts of researchers to theoretically comprehend the phenomenon of authoritarianism, including its nature, factors favoring it, as well as the reasons for its stability and the risks of destabilization. The author cites the warnings of prominent intellectuals (R. Darendorf, s. Huntington) against underestimating the "stealing authoritarianism" as a modern form of a threat to democracy and freedom, as a restriction of the liberal order. The article identifies the factors contributing to the authoritarian trend, as well as the characteristic features of the new authoritarianism: anti-pluralism, restriction of free political activity, spreading xenophobia, etc. The Russian case study shows all the stages of new authoritarianism in the 1990s – 2000s, and its specific modern look (neocorporativism, statehood, the cultivation of traditional values and the image of the enemy represented by the West, etc.) Based on the theoretical model of the "critical moment" (Critical Yuncture), the vulnerable sides of the neo-authoritarian regime are shown, creating for it risks of destabilization. ; Celem artykułu jest analiza nowego autorytaryzmu jako fenomenu pierwszej ćwierci XXI wieku, który wykazuje pewne podobieństwa do klasycznych reżimów autorytarnych z minionych epok, ale także znacznie się od nich różni. Autor odnotowuje wzrost tendencji autorytarnych we współczesnym świecie, a co za tym idzie zwiększenie zainteresowania wśród badaczy fenomenem nowego autorytaryzmu, w tym jego natury, sprzyjających mu czynników, a także przyczyn jego stabilności i ryzyka destabilizacji. Przytacza ostrzeżenia wybitnych intelektualistów (R. Dwrendorf, s. Huntington) przed niedocenianiem "pełzającego autorytaryzmu" jako nowoczesnej formy zagrożenia dla demokracji i wolności oraz ograniczenia liberalnych porządków. Artykuł identyfikuje czynniki przyczyniające się do trendu autorytarnego, a także cechy charakterystyczne nowego autorytaryzmu – antypluralizm, ograniczenie swobodnej działalności politycznej, promocję ksenofobii itp. W artykule przedstawiono rosyjskie studium przypadku: etapy powstawania nowego autorytaryzmu w Rosji w latach 90.–2000., jego specyficzny nowoczesny wygląd (neokorporatyzm, suwerenność, kultywowanie tradycyjnych wartości i wizerunek wroga wobec Zachodu itp.). Na podstawie teoretycznego modelu "momentu krytycznego" (Critical Yuncture) wykazano wrażliwe strony reżimu neoautorytarnego, które stwarzają dla niego ryzyko destabilizacji. ; Целью статьи является анализ нового авторитаризма как феномена первой чет- верти XXI века, имеющего известное сходство с классическими авторитарными режимами прошлых эпох, но и существенные различия с ними. Автор фиксирует рост авторитарных тен- денций в современном мире и обусловленные этим попытки исследователей теоретически осмыслить феномен нового авторитаризма, включая его природу, благоприятствующие ему факторы, а также причины его устойчивости и риски дестабилизации. Автор приводит предо- стережения выдающихся интеллектуалов (Р.Дврендорфа, С.Хантингтона) от недооценки «кра- дущегося авторитаризм» как современной формы угрозы демократии и свободе, как ограни- чения либеральных порядков. В статье выявлены факторы, способствующие авторитарному тренду, а также характерные черты нового авторитаризма – антиплюрализм, ограничение свободной политической деятельности, поощрение ксенофобии и т.д. Представлен российский кейс-стади: этапы формирования нового авторитаризма в России в 1990-е – 2000-е годы, его специфический современный облик (неокорпоративизм, державность, культивирование тради- ционных ценностей и образа врага в лице Запада и т.д.). С опорой на теоретическую модель «критического момента» (Critical Yuncture) показаны уязвимые стороны неоавторитарного ре- жима, создающие для него риски дестабилизации.
Political systems doesn't limit government enforcement mode. Adoption of political regime implies its implementation into legitimacy. Definition of political regime and its enforcement is a very important issue for every single state. The analysis of regime implied into legitimacy of particular state helps us understand political process and political ruling. The actuality of this theme mostly relies on the analysis of states' political regime and its development through historical, political and national changes. Object of this work is political regimes, and its aim - to analyse political regimes that exists in world. Main tasks given – to analyse and systematically present main state governing forms, fully analyse concept of political regimes, to present its' differentiations and forms, also – to provide two empirical research: to analyse the impact of development of political regime in Lithuania, analysing its Constitutions in XX century and to analyse three various political regimes – ones existing in USA, Belarus and North Korea. States might be divided into republics and monarchies. Republics – presidential (representative) or direct democracy. Analysing republics by constitutional approach it may be also divided into parliamentary or presidential governing forms. Though mixed forms also exists. States, relying on theoretical approach and governing form may be also distinguished: unitary, federation and confederation. The governing regime depends on constitutional background that sets state's government. Political regime – methods of governing. They may be distinguished: normative, economical political, cultural, social or mixed. But mostly these regimes are distinguished into democratic or nondemocratic. Nondemocratic are also distinguished into authoritarian and totalitarian. Development of political regime mostly depends on the states' historical development, traditions, values, geopolitics or political leader. After analysing Lithuanian XX c. Constitutions, we conclude, that political regime developed from democratic to authoritarian, and nowadays – it's again democracy, that was established in the 1922 years' Constitution (with exceptions also in 1928), changed to authoritarian governing in 1938 and restored after Independency (1992). Three different foreign political regimes let us to conclude, that USA is a presenter of fundamental constitutionalism, Belarus is a state, that though has constitution but its' regime is authoritarian, and North Korea has totalitarian political regime. Master thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions, list of used literature and summaries, in Lithuanian and English.
Political systems doesn't limit government enforcement mode. Adoption of political regime implies its implementation into legitimacy. Definition of political regime and its enforcement is a very important issue for every single state. The analysis of regime implied into legitimacy of particular state helps us understand political process and political ruling. The actuality of this theme mostly relies on the analysis of states' political regime and its development through historical, political and national changes. Object of this work is political regimes, and its aim - to analyse political regimes that exists in world. Main tasks given – to analyse and systematically present main state governing forms, fully analyse concept of political regimes, to present its' differentiations and forms, also – to provide two empirical research: to analyse the impact of development of political regime in Lithuania, analysing its Constitutions in XX century and to analyse three various political regimes – ones existing in USA, Belarus and North Korea. States might be divided into republics and monarchies. Republics – presidential (representative) or direct democracy. Analysing republics by constitutional approach it may be also divided into parliamentary or presidential governing forms. Though mixed forms also exists. States, relying on theoretical approach and governing form may be also distinguished: unitary, federation and confederation. The governing regime depends on constitutional background that sets state's government. Political regime – methods of governing. They may be distinguished: normative, economical political, cultural, social or mixed. But mostly these regimes are distinguished into democratic or nondemocratic. Nondemocratic are also distinguished into authoritarian and totalitarian. Development of political regime mostly depends on the states' historical development, traditions, values, geopolitics or political leader. After analysing Lithuanian XX c. Constitutions, we conclude, that political regime developed from democratic to authoritarian, and nowadays – it's again democracy, that was established in the 1922 years' Constitution (with exceptions also in 1928), changed to authoritarian governing in 1938 and restored after Independency (1992). Three different foreign political regimes let us to conclude, that USA is a presenter of fundamental constitutionalism, Belarus is a state, that though has constitution but its' regime is authoritarian, and North Korea has totalitarian political regime. Master thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions, list of used literature and summaries, in Lithuanian and English.
Many experts argued that political regime in contemporary Russia represented one of the instances of the global phenomenon of electoral authoritarianism. But what are the major features of such a regime in case of Russia, what about its institutional foundations and political pillars? How its life cycle – the emergence, development, and further decay changed over time, and which ways it might evolve in the foreseeable future? My paper sought answers to these questions. ; Peer reviewed
