Do radical anticorruption measures such as lustration reduce corruption by systematically limiting the political participation of former authoritarian actors? While research has largely overlooked the role of transitional justice in addressing corruption, some scholars claim that lustration may increase corruption by reducing bureaucratic expertise. Analyzing original panel data from 30 post-communist states from 1996 to 2011, we find that lustration is effective in lowering corruption. Lustration disrupts the political, economic, and administrative malpractice of the preceding regimes by limiting opportunities for corruption of former communist elites. To illuminate the causal mechanism, we examine the cases of Estonia, which has adopted lustration and lowered corruption; Georgia, which has reduced corruption since first considering lustration; and Russia, which has not adopted lustration and maintains high levels of corruption. This study breaks new ground with a novel system-level explanation and an integrative approach to causation for the entire post-communist world.Corruption in the former communist world represents a major problem for policy makers and scholars alike. Whether in the form of administrative malpractice, asset stripping, or state capture, post-communist corruption has been pervasive and difficult to fight (Karklins 2005). As a theoretically driven problem, studies on corruption have boomed, but anticorruption research remains Ba young métier^(Schmidt 2007). The St Comp Int Dev impact of the anticorruption efforts is ambiguous (Sampson 2010) and the lack of theoretical debate limits research progress.Particularly puzzling is the absence of a major theoretical issue: the impact of transitional justice. If purging corruption is a matter of justice and integrity in societies after a regime change (Anechiarico 1996), why have scholars been silent on whether transitional justice affects post-communist corruption? There have been countryspecific studies regarding the impact of international banks and organizations (Michael 2004), domestic anticorruption agencies, civil society, and the media (Hough 2013) on corruption. However, little research has assessed the mechanisms of transitional justice as anticorruption tools.Lustration is analogous to the transparency and anticorruption legislation that screens politicians for unethical behavior (Alt et al. 2006) and has been viewed as a radical anticorruption measure (Holmes 2006). As a form of social and administrative justice, lustration scrutinizes individuals for links with the previous authoritarian leadership, bureaucracy, or security services and limits their political and civic participation. While it has been often used as a tool for political competition rather than justice (Rožič 2012), we find that lustration coincides with low levels of corruption. Using the discourse of the past to justify lustration against political opponents, political elites reduce corruption when they debate and implement lustration. This correlation raises the unaddr...

What philosopher should be conferred the prestigious title of the founder of modern political science? This article claims that Thomas Hobbes most deserves to be called the founding father of the modern scientific discipline tasked with the study of politics, state and government. Disapproving of its ancient founder, Aristotle, the discipline begins anew with a combination of arguments from Machiavelli and Hobbes. More precisely, modern political science is founded on the Hobbesian correction of Machiavelli as Hobbes not only focuses on the separation of morals and science, by relying on an illiberal conception of human nature, but also radically redefines science as such. This paradigmatic shift has in turn subverted the discipline. The legacies of Hobbesian scientific revolution have provided contemporary political science with a justification for its fascination with order and metrics. Denying the intrinsic value of the normative nature of political realities, a coherent conception of politics and, consequently, a coherent conception of the purpose of the study of politics remain incomplete and illiberal.

No abstract

Edited volume is researching the behaviour of democratic institutions of state regulation, to ascertain their relationship and openness to citizens and their initiatives, and is examining the possibilities of civil society forming policies. Special emphasis is being put on latest (non)democratic processes in both case study countries, i.e. Poland and Slovenia. In practice both countries rank in all aspects among liberal democracies. On the other side, there are different sorts of meagre democracies: exclusive, non-liberal, delegation and patronising. The book presents selected Slovenian and Polish constitutional regulations, as well as the organisation and actions of political authorities. Authors are seeking answers to different questions, for instance the question of the extent to which both countries have managed to approach the ideal model of democratic regulation since democratisation processes in 1990s. Authors are aplying different methods when dealing with the mentioned subjects among which transitional, modernisation and structural methods are worth mentioning.