Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification

Roman Martyniuk; Oleksii Datsiuk; Mykola Romanov; Tetiana Khomych

doi:doi:10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification

Roman Martyniuk, Oleksii Datsiuk, Mykola Romanov, Tetiana Khomych

Published in Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 7, Issue 2)

Received: 12 February 2023 Accepted: 19 May 2023 Published: 10 June 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Asia, a special presidential form of government was formed, which, in fact, cannot be classified within the trichotomous division of republican forms of government established in modern political science. Attempts by researchers to clearly define this form of government generate real classification chaos. Many scientists tend to see the studied form of government as a presidential version of a mixed republic. Another group of scientists, given the hypertrophy of the constitutional status of the president, perceives it as a certain variant of the presidential republic. In fact, the form of government adopted in many post-Soviet states eclectically combines elements of presidential and mixed republics and at the same time fundamentally does not meet the criteria of both of these forms of government. It is not a presidential republic, since it does not reveal a “hard” division of power and contains certain elements of parliamentarism, and it is not a mixed republic, since it does not have its minimum necessary set of features. Therefore, this form of government cannot be identified with presidential or mixed republics, nor can it be considered as a partial deviation from one of them. The idea of a mixed republic had a significant impact on the latest state-building practice of the post-Soviet states. At the same time, in most of them, the difficult conditions of the initial stage of state formation caused a significant strengthening of the power of the president. The consequence of this was the dominance of the president not only in relation to the system of executive bodies, but also in relation to the state mechanism in general. The transformation of the president into the real head of the executive power distorted the nature of the mixed republic and gave birth to a new hybrid form of government, which combined certain formal and legal features of the mixed republic with the hypertrophied constitutional status of the president.

Published in	Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 7, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
Page(s)	56-66
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Mixed Republic, Presidential Republic, Transitional Presidentialized Republic, Dualism of Executive Power, Classification of Forms of Government, Parliamentary Responsibility of Government, Countersignature

References

[1]	Zaznayev O. (2007). Semi-presidential system: political and legal analysis: dissertation of a doctor of legal sciences. Kazan, 400 p.
[2]	Sartori J. (2001). Comparative Constitutional Engineering: A Study of Structures, Motives, and Outcomes. Kyiv, ArtEk, 224 p.
[3]	Arutyunyan A. (1996). Institute of the President of the Republic of Armenia. Comparative legal analysis. Yerevan, Mkhitar Gosh, 312 p.
[4]	Seilekhanov E. (2009). The political system of the Republic of Kazakhstan: the experience of development and prospects. Almaty, The Kazakhstan Institute of Systemic Research under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 p.
[5]	Arutyunyan A. (2005). The place of the president in the system of political and legal institutes of the post-Soviet republics. Jurisprudencija. Vol. 77 (69), pp. 5-10.
[6]	Zaznayev O. (2006). The semi-presidential system: theoretical and applied aspects. Kazan, Kazan State University named after Ulyanov-Lenin, 374 p.
[7]	Holmes S. (1994). Post-Communist Institute of the President. Constitutional law: Eastern European review. No 4-5, pp. 53-57.
[8]	Shapoval V. (2013). The principle of separation of powers and the evolution of the constitutional statuses of the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Constitutional reforms in Ukraine: history, theory and practice. Kyiv, Yurinkom Inter, 512 p.
[9]	Shapoval V. (2016). Executive power in Ukraine in the context of the form of state government (experience before the adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine in 1996). Law of Ukraine. No 3, pp. 200-212.
[10]	Constitution of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of June 28, 1996 No 254/96-vr. News of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. No 30, Art. 141, 1996.
[11]	Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated December 8, 1992 (Ed. dated December 11, 2011). Collected legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan. No 16, Art. 159, 2011.
[12]	Constitution of Turkmenistan dated May 18, 1992 (Ed. dated September 26, 2008). URL: http://www.legislationline.org.
[13]	Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated November 12, 1995. Constitution of the CIS and Baltic States. Moscow, Yurist, 1999, 640 p.
[14]	Constitution of the Republic of Belarus dated March 15, 1994. URL: http://together.lviv.ua.
[15]	Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 30, 1995 (Ed. dated February 2, 2011). URL: http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1005029.
[16]	Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic dated April 11, 2021. URL: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/112213?cl=ru-ru.
[17]	Constitution of the Russian Federation dated December 12, 1993. URL: http://duma.gov.ru/news/48953/.
[18]	The Constitution of Georgia dated August 24, 1995. Constitutions of the CIS and Baltic States. Moscow, Yurist, 1999, 640 p.
[19]	Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan dated November 6, 1994 (Ed. dated May 22, 2003). URL: http://www.cawater-info.net/bd/tajikistan.
[20]	Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic dated May 5, 1993. Constitutions of the CIS and Baltic States. Moscow, Yurist, 1999, 640 p.
[21]	Kozyrin A., Glushko E. (2007). Government in foreign countries. Moscow, Axis-89, 240 p.
[22]	Constitution of the Republic of Belarus dated March 15, 1994. Constitutions of the new states of Europe and Asia. Kyiv, Pravo, 1996, 544 p.
[23]	Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated December 8, 1992. Constitutions of the new states of Europe and Asia. Kyiv, Pravo, 1996, 544 p.
[24]	Holmes S. (1994). Superpresidency and its problems. Constitutional law: Eastern European review. No 4-5, pp. 22-25.
[25]	Chebotarev G. (1997). Presidential power. Russian legal journal. No 4, pp. 93-99.
[26]	Baglai M. (2008). Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of America. Role, election procedure, powers. Moscow, Norma, 144 p.
[27]	Constitution of Turkmenistan dated May 18, 1992. Constitutions of the CIS and Baltic States. Moscow, Yurist, 1999, 640 p.
[28]	Arutyunyan A. (2006). The institution of the president in the post-Soviet republics: constitution and political reality (Comparative legal analysis). Yerevan, Petakan tsarayutyun, 151 p.
[29]	Ovchinnikova O. (2008). Evolution of the form of government of the Russian state: historical and theoretical aspect: abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of legal sciences. Moscow, 24 p.
[30]	Krasnov M. (2006). The personalist regime in Russia: the experience of institutional analysis. Moscow, “Liberal Mission” Foundation, 180 p.
[31]	Medushevskiy A. (1997). Democracy and authoritarianism: Russian constitutionalism in a comparative perspective. Moscow, Russian political encyclopedia, 650 p.
[32]	Zaznayev O. (2006). The semi-presidential system: political and legal analysis: abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Jurisprudence. Kazan, 40 p.
[33]	Zaznayev O. (2008). Superpresidential systems in the post-Soviet space. Scientific notes of the Kazan State University. Vol. 150, Book 7, pp. 16-30.
[34]	Marino I. (2005). Comparative and legal analysis of the constitutional and legal relations of the president with other higher bodies of state power (the experience of Russia, Italy, the USA and France): abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of legal sciences. Moscow, 20 p.
[35]	Marino I. (2006). The President and the Basic Law of Russia. Founding fathers of the Constitution: legal positions. Moscow, ALMI, 328 p.
[36]	Bachilo I. (2004). The formation of the system of executive power in Russia. Executive power in Russia. History and modernity, problems and prospects of development. Moscow, Novaya pravovaya kultura, 568 p.
[37]	Simonishvili L. (2007). Forms of government: history and modernity. M, Flinta, 280 p.
[38]	Varlamova N. (1999). Post-socialist society, law and state in Russia: main trends and directions of development. Problems of the general theory of law and state. Moscow, NORMA-INFRA-M, 832 p.
[39]	(1997). Constitution of the Russian Federation. Problem comment. Moscow, Center for Scientific Research, MONF, 702 p.
[40]	Kovalev A. (2003). Specifics of the form of government of the Russian Federation. Constitutional law: Eastern European review. No 4 (45), pp. 95-102.
[41]	Chetvernin V. (1999). State: essence, concept, structure, functions. Problems of the general theory of law and state. Moscow, NORMA-INFRA-M, 832 p.
[42]	Morozova L. (2010). Theory of the state and law. Moscow. Rossiyskoye yuridicheskoye obrazovaniye, 384 p.
[43]	Balytnikov V., Ivanov V. (2000). Constitutional modernization: preserving by renewing, renewing by preserving. Constitutional law: Eastern European review. No 2 (31), pp. 116-121.
[44]	Parechina S. (2003). Institute of the presidency: history and modernity. Minsk, ISPI, 2003, 163 p.
[45]	Mukhamedzhanov B. (2008). The form of government of the Republic of Kazakhstan: constitutional model and practice of state administration: abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Law. Moscow, 51 p.
[46]	Malinovskiy V. (2012). LEADER: presidential power in Kazakhstan at the turn of the era. Astana, Norma-K, 528 p.
[47]	Shapoval V. (2009). The form of state government as the constitutional modus vivendi of the modern state. Law of Ukraine. No 10, pp. 38-56.
[48]	Martyniuk R. (2020). Organization of state power in a mixed republican form of government: theoretical and legal analysis. Rivne: O. Zen Publisher, 500 p.
[49]	Bloüet A. (2022). Le droit constitutionnel par-delà l’exceptionnisme politique: la séparation des pouvoirs et la compréhension des régimes autoritaires et démocratiques. Jus politicum. № 28. pр. 205-231.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Roman Martyniuk, Oleksii Datsiuk, Mykola Romanov, Tetiana Khomych. (2023). Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 7(2), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Roman Martyniuk; Oleksii Datsiuk; Mykola Romanov; Tetiana Khomych. Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. J. Public Policy Adm. 2023, 7(2), 56-66. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Roman Martyniuk, Oleksii Datsiuk, Mykola Romanov, Tetiana Khomych. Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. J Public Policy Adm. 2023;7(2):56-66. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14,
  author = {Roman Martyniuk and Oleksii Datsiuk and Mykola Romanov and Tetiana Khomych},
  title = {Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification},
  journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {56-66},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20230702.14},
  abstract = {In the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Asia, a special presidential form of government was formed, which, in fact, cannot be classified within the trichotomous division of republican forms of government established in modern political science. Attempts by researchers to clearly define this form of government generate real classification chaos. Many scientists tend to see the studied form of government as a presidential version of a mixed republic. Another group of scientists, given the hypertrophy of the constitutional status of the president, perceives it as a certain variant of the presidential republic. In fact, the form of government adopted in many post-Soviet states eclectically combines elements of presidential and mixed republics and at the same time fundamentally does not meet the criteria of both of these forms of government. It is not a presidential republic, since it does not reveal a “hard” division of power and contains certain elements of parliamentarism, and it is not a mixed republic, since it does not have its minimum necessary set of features. Therefore, this form of government cannot be identified with presidential or mixed republics, nor can it be considered as a partial deviation from one of them. The idea of a mixed republic had a significant impact on the latest state-building practice of the post-Soviet states. At the same time, in most of them, the difficult conditions of the initial stage of state formation caused a significant strengthening of the power of the president. The consequence of this was the dominance of the president not only in relation to the system of executive bodies, but also in relation to the state mechanism in general. The transformation of the president into the real head of the executive power distorted the nature of the mixed republic and gave birth to a new hybrid form of government, which combined certain formal and legal features of the mixed republic with the hypertrophied constitutional status of the president.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification
AU  - Roman Martyniuk
AU  - Oleksii Datsiuk
AU  - Mykola Romanov
AU  - Tetiana Khomych
Y1  - 2023/06/10
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
SP  - 56
EP  - 66
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-2696
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
AB  - In the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Asia, a special presidential form of government was formed, which, in fact, cannot be classified within the trichotomous division of republican forms of government established in modern political science. Attempts by researchers to clearly define this form of government generate real classification chaos. Many scientists tend to see the studied form of government as a presidential version of a mixed republic. Another group of scientists, given the hypertrophy of the constitutional status of the president, perceives it as a certain variant of the presidential republic. In fact, the form of government adopted in many post-Soviet states eclectically combines elements of presidential and mixed republics and at the same time fundamentally does not meet the criteria of both of these forms of government. It is not a presidential republic, since it does not reveal a “hard” division of power and contains certain elements of parliamentarism, and it is not a mixed republic, since it does not have its minimum necessary set of features. Therefore, this form of government cannot be identified with presidential or mixed republics, nor can it be considered as a partial deviation from one of them. The idea of a mixed republic had a significant impact on the latest state-building practice of the post-Soviet states. At the same time, in most of them, the difficult conditions of the initial stage of state formation caused a significant strengthening of the power of the president. The consequence of this was the dominance of the president not only in relation to the system of executive bodies, but also in relation to the state mechanism in general. The transformation of the president into the real head of the executive power distorted the nature of the mixed republic and gave birth to a new hybrid form of government, which combined certain formal and legal features of the mixed republic with the hypertrophied constitutional status of the president.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Roman Martyniuk

Institute of Law, The National University “Ostroh Academy”, Ostroh, Ukraine
Oleksii Datsiuk

Institute of Law, The National University “Ostroh Academy”, Ostroh, Ukraine
Mykola Romanov

Institute of International Relations and National Security, The National University “Ostroh Academy”, Ostroh, Ukraine
Tetiana Khomych

Institute of Law, The National University “Ostroh Academy”, Ostroh, Ukraine

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Roman Martyniuk, Oleksii Datsiuk, Mykola Romanov, Tetiana Khomych. (2023). Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 7(2), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Roman Martyniuk; Oleksii Datsiuk; Mykola Romanov; Tetiana Khomych. Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. J. Public Policy Adm. 2023, 7(2), 56-66. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Roman Martyniuk, Oleksii Datsiuk, Mykola Romanov, Tetiana Khomych. Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification. J Public Policy Adm. 2023;7(2):56-66. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14,
  author = {Roman Martyniuk and Oleksii Datsiuk and Mykola Romanov and Tetiana Khomych},
  title = {Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification},
  journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {56-66},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20230702.14},
  abstract = {In the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Asia, a special presidential form of government was formed, which, in fact, cannot be classified within the trichotomous division of republican forms of government established in modern political science. Attempts by researchers to clearly define this form of government generate real classification chaos. Many scientists tend to see the studied form of government as a presidential version of a mixed republic. Another group of scientists, given the hypertrophy of the constitutional status of the president, perceives it as a certain variant of the presidential republic. In fact, the form of government adopted in many post-Soviet states eclectically combines elements of presidential and mixed republics and at the same time fundamentally does not meet the criteria of both of these forms of government. It is not a presidential republic, since it does not reveal a “hard” division of power and contains certain elements of parliamentarism, and it is not a mixed republic, since it does not have its minimum necessary set of features. Therefore, this form of government cannot be identified with presidential or mixed republics, nor can it be considered as a partial deviation from one of them. The idea of a mixed republic had a significant impact on the latest state-building practice of the post-Soviet states. At the same time, in most of them, the difficult conditions of the initial stage of state formation caused a significant strengthening of the power of the president. The consequence of this was the dominance of the president not only in relation to the system of executive bodies, but also in relation to the state mechanism in general. The transformation of the president into the real head of the executive power distorted the nature of the mixed republic and gave birth to a new hybrid form of government, which combined certain formal and legal features of the mixed republic with the hypertrophied constitutional status of the president.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Post-Soviet Presidentialized Republics: Factors for Choosing the Form of Government and Difficulties of Its Classification
AU  - Roman Martyniuk
AU  - Oleksii Datsiuk
AU  - Mykola Romanov
AU  - Tetiana Khomych
Y1  - 2023/06/10
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
SP  - 56
EP  - 66
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-2696
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230702.14
AB  - In the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Asia, a special presidential form of government was formed, which, in fact, cannot be classified within the trichotomous division of republican forms of government established in modern political science. Attempts by researchers to clearly define this form of government generate real classification chaos. Many scientists tend to see the studied form of government as a presidential version of a mixed republic. Another group of scientists, given the hypertrophy of the constitutional status of the president, perceives it as a certain variant of the presidential republic. In fact, the form of government adopted in many post-Soviet states eclectically combines elements of presidential and mixed republics and at the same time fundamentally does not meet the criteria of both of these forms of government. It is not a presidential republic, since it does not reveal a “hard” division of power and contains certain elements of parliamentarism, and it is not a mixed republic, since it does not have its minimum necessary set of features. Therefore, this form of government cannot be identified with presidential or mixed republics, nor can it be considered as a partial deviation from one of them. The idea of a mixed republic had a significant impact on the latest state-building practice of the post-Soviet states. At the same time, in most of them, the difficult conditions of the initial stage of state formation caused a significant strengthening of the power of the president. The consequence of this was the dominance of the president not only in relation to the system of executive bodies, but also in relation to the state mechanism in general. The transformation of the president into the real head of the executive power distorted the nature of the mixed republic and gave birth to a new hybrid form of government, which combined certain formal and legal features of the mixed republic with the hypertrophied constitutional status of the president.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download