Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: Transition to Sultanistic Semiauthoritarianism? An Attempt at Conceptualization

Guliyev, Farid

doi:10.3200/demo.13.3.393-436

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In relation to the post-Soviet area, Oleh Fisun (2003) has differentiated between different forms of neopatrimonialism: bureaucratic (Belarus), oligarchic (Ukraine and Georgia) and sultanistic (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). According to Fisun, oligarchic neopatrimonialism entails 'the formation of wide strata of oligarchic or regional rent-seeking actors, acting together with or in place of governmental institutions primarily via client-based networks of patronage and pork barrel rewards' (cited in Guliyev 2005). As we will go on to demonstrate, oligarchic neopatrimonialism best describes the situation in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.…”

Section: Neopatrimonialismmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Furthermore, even after the death of Aliyev senior, the symbolic dimension of his patriarchalism (being 'the Father of Nation') is still alive to the public. Even though his son has been president since 2003, in everyday life as well as in the political sphere, Aliyev senior fulfils the role of an important political symbol (Guliyev 2005). Right from the very beginning of his presidency, Aliyev junior has been perceived as a weak president who is controlled and influenced by old elite circles from his father's time (even though he has made some replacements in leadership positions).…”

Section: Dynastic Structures: Azerbaijan's Version Of Authoritarianismmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as Post-Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’in Post-Soviet Regimes

Franke

Gawrich

Alakbarov

2009

Europe-Asia Studies

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an analysis of two post-Soviet states, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which can be identified as post-Soviet rentier states. Both countries are characterised economically by enormous national resources of gas and oil and low economic diversification as well as politically by strong autocratic presidentialism with neopatrimonial structures. These two factors, combined with further post-Soviet legacies such as a low level of political interest in the respective societies and a basically hierarchical orientation of the population, lead to a specific post-Soviet variety of rentierism. From a political science perspective, this article reveals the impact of resource policies on these comparably new political systems and concludes with a summary of core features of these post-Soviet rentier states. THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS AN ANALYSIS OF TWO post-Soviet states, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which we identify and analyse as post-Soviet rentier states (PSRS). In order to understand the particular political systems of both of these countries, it is necessary to take a closer look at the interrelation between resource incomes and resource policy, as well as the polity (the institutional frame) and politics (the decisionmaking processes) of these countries. 1 Both countries share similarities and structural parallels that are especially apparent in post-Soviet states in the region around the Caspian Sea. To begin with, we see similarities in the presidential, autocratic, neopatrimonial and centralised political systems of both countries. Secondly, we see similarities in the structures of traditional social relations of clan, tribe and family, which find their roots in the pre-Soviet era (Collins 2002). Finally, we find weakly developed national identities, due to 70 years of 1 Our research is based on the project 'Political and Economic Challenges of Resource-Based Development in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan', funded by VW-Foundation. This project is based at the University of Kiel. For further information visit http://www.razkaz.uni-kiel.de.

show abstract

Section: Neopatrimonialismmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Dynastic Structures: Azerbaijan's Version Of Authoritarianismmentioning

confidence: 98%

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as Post-Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’in Post-Soviet Regimes

Franke

Gawrich

Alakbarov

2009

Europe-Asia Studies

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although Abulfaz Elchibey"s Popular Front was democratic and attempted to build a liberal democratic governance system, the Popular Front administration could not manage to stay in power for long. Due to ineffective bureaucratic control, it completely lost control over the economy and the security services, and a military coup caused a government change (Cornell 2001(Cornell , 2011Guliyev 2005;Ergun 2010). Following Elchibey"s downfall, Heydar Aliyevthe First Secretary of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan (1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982) during the Soviet rule rose to power and consolidated his rule until his death in 2002.…”

Section: The Energy-driven Early Modernization Of Azerbaijan: Economimentioning

confidence: 99%

Modernization and Social Change in Azerbaijan: Assessing the Transformation of Azerbaijan through the Theories of Modernity

Khalilzada¹

2019

NMES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The socialist development model of the Soviet Union has attracted much scholarly attention over the years, but the modernization experiences of singular post-Soviet countries (e.g. Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkmenistan) are rarely discussed. This may be because these countries have only recently gained their independence in the early 1990s and that perhaps most observers are still unsure about their trajectories. This study aims to contribute to the literature by examining the case of Azerbaijan in light of various influential theories of modernity (i.e. the classical modernization theory, neo-modernization theory and multiple modernities paradigm). Azerbaijan’s modernization process has been characterized by fluctuations, reversals and various external influences over the years. The country first emerged as an independent political entity in 1918 and attempted to follow a systematic cultural Westernization and secularization program. Yet it was occupied by the Bolshevik Red Army in 1920 and annexed into the newly formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – being forced to conform to the top-down socialist development model directed by Moscow for many decades. Since gaining its independence once again after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, Azerbaijan has operated as a secularist country, faltering to democratize and trying to integrate to the global economic system as an energy-producing (i.e. oil and natural gas) rentier economy. While Azerbaijan has sought to become part of the so-called “Western civilization” via building close ties with Turkey, US, Israel, NATO and the EU, the ruling elites in Baku have resisted any calls for democratic reform – not unlike the rentier economies of the Middle East such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. This article will argue that the complex development track of Azerbaijan provides an appropriate case to challenge the hypotheses of the classical modernization and neo-modernization theories, while supporting those of the multiple modernities paradigm.

show abstract

“…In the post-Soviet arena, scholars have employed neopatrimonialism as a partial explanation for how the region's states have survived despite institutional weakness (Franke et al 2009;Guliyev 2011;Ikhamov 2013). Work here has demarcated regimes along a neopatrimonial spectrum, ranging from sultanistic (in Central Asia) to oligarchic (in Ukraine, Georgia, and Yeltsin-era Russia) and bureaucratic (in Belarus and, perhaps, contemporary Russia) (Guliyev 2007). Other scholars have tried specifically to grasp the opaque networks of patronage and personal connection that pervade business and political life in Russia (Fisun 2012;Robinson 2011Robinson , 2013van Zon 2008).…”

Section: Neopatrimonialism and Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis Neopatrimonialism

Wolfe

Müller

2018

Problems of Post-Communism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic crisis since 2010 has affected Russia's political economy by reducing the income available to fund political loyalty-the key mechanism of neopatrimonialism. Through an investigation of key infrastructure development projects, we examine how this crisis has affected the preparations for the 2018 Football World Cup. In so doing we introduce the concept of crisis neopatrimonialism, referring to the political and economic adaptations of a neopatrimonial system in response to economic crisis. Our research uncovered three major adaptations of neopatrimonialism in the context of World Cup preparations: a retreat of private money and concomitant rise in public funding, a reordering of favored elites, and higher costs of loyalty.

show abstract

Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: Transition to Sultanistic Semiauthoritarianism? An Attempt at Conceptualization

Cited by 27 publications

References 55 publications

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as Post-Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’in Post-Soviet Regimes

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as Post-Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’in Post-Soviet Regimes

Modernization and Social Change in Azerbaijan: Assessing the Transformation of Azerbaijan through the Theories of Modernity

Crisis Neopatrimonialism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About