Institutional Change And Political Continuity In Post-soviet Central Asia: Power, Perceptions, And Pacts (cambridge Studies In Comparative Politics)

The establishment of electoral systems in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan presents both a complex set of empirical puzzles and a theoretical challenge. Why did three states with similar cultural, historical, and structural legacies establish such different electoral systems? How did these distinct outcomes result from strikingly similar institutional design processes? Explaining these puzzles requires understanding not only the outcome of institutional design but also the intricacies of the process that led to this outcome. Moreover, the transitional context in which these three states designed new electoral rules necessitates an approach that explicitly links process and outcome in a dynamic setting. This book provides such an approach. Finally, it both builds on the key insights of the dominant approaches to explaining institutional origin and change and transcends these approaches by moving beyond the structure versus agency debate. Cover......Page 1 Half-title......Page 3 Series-title......Page 5 Title......Page 7 Copyright......Page 8 Dedication......Page 9 Contents......Page 11 Tables......Page 13 Figures......Page 14 Note on Transliteration......Page 16 Acronyms......Page 17 Acknowledgments......Page 19 1 The Continuity of Change......Page 25 Electoral Systems; Institutional Origin and Change; and Regime Transition......Page 27 The Establishment of Electoral Systems in Central Asia: Populist, Centralist, and Dualistic......Page 32 Perceptions of Power: Strategic Bargaining and Institutional Design......Page 34 The Power of Perceptions: Theoretical Contributions......Page 38 Why Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan?......Page 42 Why Interviews and How Were They Conducted?......Page 44 A Road Map......Page 47 2 Explaining Institutional Design in Transitional States......Page 49 Explaining Institutional Design in Transitional States: A Dynamic Approach......Page 50 Transitional Bargaining Game......Page 54 Implications of a Dynamic Approach: Beyond Structure Versus Agency......Page 61 3 Sources of Continuity......Page 75 Potential Social Bases for Identity Formation and Mobilization in Central Asia......Page 77 The Rise of Regionalism in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan......Page 79 Explaining Identity Formation and Ethnic Mobilization......Page 83 Why Regionalism? Why Not Tribalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, and Nationalism?......Page 87 The Soviet Legacy and Regional Cleavages in Kyrgyzstan......Page 98 The Soviet Legacy and Regional Cleavages in Uzbekistan......Page 106 The Soviet Legacy and Regional Cleavages in Kazakhstan......Page 115 Regionalism, Political Stability, and Institutional Continuity......Page 123 4 Sources of Change......Page 126 The Nature of Transitions: General Features and Unique Circumstances......Page 127 The Transitional Context in Kyrgyzstan......Page 130 Features of the Political Transition......Page 132 Features of the Economic Transition......Page 138 International Role......Page 141 State-Building Orientation......Page 143 The Transitional Context in Uzbekistan......Page 144 Features of the Political Transition......Page 145 Features of the Economic Transition......Page 154 International Role......Page 157 State-Building Orientation......Page 158 The Transitional Context in Kazakhstan......Page 160 Features of the Political Transition......Page 161 Features of the Economic Transition......Page 171 International Role......Page 175 State-Building Orientation......Page 176 Agency and the Transition: Contingent Choice and Perceptions of Power......Page 178 5 Establishing an Electoral System in Kyrgyzstan......Page 180 Setting Up the Game: Actors, Preferences, and Underlying Power Asymmetries......Page 182 Playing the Game: Perceptions and Strategies......Page 190 Nomination of Candidates......Page 191 Composition and Jurisdiction of the Electoral Commissions......Page 195 Determination of Seats......Page 197 The Structure of Parliament......Page 202 Institutional Outcomes: Distributional “Winners” and “Losers”......Page 209 Evaluating the Game: The Power of Perceptions......Page 211 6 Establishing an Electoral System in Uzbekistan......Page 213 Setting Up the Game: Actors, Preferences, and Underlying Power Asymmetries......Page 214 Playing the Game: Perceptions and Strategies......Page 221 Nomination of Candidates for Election to Parliament......Page 223 Selection and Jurisdiction of Central and District Electoral Commissions......Page 227 Determination of Seats......Page 230 The Structure of Parliament......Page 233 Outcomes: Institutional “Winners” and “Losers”......Page 234 Evaluating the Game: The Power of Perceptions......Page 235 7 Establishing an Electoral System in Kazakhstan......Page 237 Setting Up the Game: Actors, Preferences, and Underlying Power Asymmetries......Page 239 Playing the Game: Perceptions and Strategies......Page 249 Nomination of Candidates for Election to Parliament......Page 252 Selection and Jurisdiction of Central and District Electoral Commissions......Page 261 Determination of Seats......Page 264 The Structure of Parliament......Page 270 Outcomes: Institutional “Winners” and “Losers”......Page 274 Evaluating the Game: The Power of Perceptions......Page 275 8 Institutional Change through Continuity......Page 277 Competing Approaches and Alternative Explanations......Page 279 Structural Approaches......Page 280 Agency-Based Approaches......Page 285 Explaining the Establishment of Electoral Systems in Central Asia......Page 293 Explaining Patterns of Regime Change in Central Asia......Page 297 Institutional Legacies, Power Asymmetries, and Continuity versus Change......Page 300 “Pacted Transitions” versus “Pacted Stability”......Page 301 Appendix I......Page 304 Appendix II......Page 307 Sources for Appendix II......Page 317 English Language Sources......Page 319 Foreign Language Sources (Russian, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Kazakh)......Page 328 Index......Page 333

The establishment of electoral systems in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan presents a complex set of empirical puzzles as well as a theoretical challenge. Why did three states with similar cultural, historical, and structural legacies establish such different electoral systems? How did these distinct outcomes result from strikingly similar institutional design processes? Explaining these puzzles requires understanding not only the outcome of institutional design but also the intricacies of the process that led to this outcome. Moreover, the transitional context in which the three states designed new electoral rules necessitates an approach that explicitly links process and outcome in a dynamic setting. This book provides such an approach. It depicts institutional design as a transitional bargaining game in which the dynamic interaction between the structural-historical and immediate-strategic contexts directly shapes actors' perceptions of shifts in their relative power, and hence, their bargaining strategies. Thus, it both builds on the key insights of the dominant approaches to explaining institutional origin and change and transcends these approaches by moving beyond the structure versus agency debate.

The Continuity Of Change: Old Formulas And New Institutions -- Explaining Institutional Design In Transitional States: Beyond Structure Versus Agency -- Sources Of Continuity: The Soviet Legacy In Central Asia -- Sources Of Change: The Transitional Context In Central Asia -- Establishing An Electoral System In Kyrgyzstan: Rise Of The Regions -- Establishing An Electoral System In Uzbekistan: Revenge Of The Center -- Establishing An Electoral System In Kazakhstan: The Center's Rise And The Regions' Revenge -- Institutional Change Through Continuity: Shifting Power And Prospects For Democracy -- Career Patterns Of Regional Leaders In Soviet And Post-soviet Central Asia. Pauline Jones Luong. Includes Bibliographical References (p. 295-308) And Index. Pauline Luong examines the transitional differences in the setting up of the electoral systems of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan and the intricacies of the process that led to the systems now in force