State-Building, Rule of Law, Good Governance and Human Rights in Post-Soviet Space

Thirty Years Looking Back

Lucia Leontiev, Punsara Amarasinghe, Lucia Leontiev, Punsara Amarasinghe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000583236
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Russische Politik

This edited book analyses the issues of state-building, the rule of law and good governance, and human rights in the post-Soviet space after 30 years from the USSR dissolution.

In doing so, it assesses the presence (or absence) and the level of influence of the Soviet legacies in the constructed political and legal systems of the post-Soviet republics. Assessing whether individual's interests are protected in theory and practice, the book conceptualizes the legacies that the Soviet Union left in the post-Soviet space after 30 years of disintegration.

This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of human rights, governance, democratization studies, post-Soviet and Russia studies, and more widely to comparative politics, political economy, humanitarian studies and political history.

1 Soviet Union Dissolution and Thirty Years of Independence

Introduction and Perspective

Lucia Leontiev and Punsara Amarasinghe

DOI: 10.4324/9781003198024-1

1 Setting the Scene

The jubilation that erupted in the West after the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) certainly evoked an ideological triumph signifying the long-awaited geopolitical shift. It was under this euphoric moment Francis Fukuyama coined the “End of History” thesis by proclaiming the fall of the Soviet Union as the endpoint of mankind’s evolution and universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama 1989: 11). The post-Soviet studies or post-Soviet politics generated many avenues for social scientists to contemplate the issues that arose within the 15 post-Soviet republics. On the other hand, post-Soviet space was generally viewed by the West as a political laboratory to implement the popular ideologies of the era of neoliberalism, governance and civil society in line with the principles of what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. In the words of Ruth Mandel (2012: 228) “the dissolution of the USSR provided an ideal laboratory to set these ideologically driven policies.”

However, the events that took place in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR did not bring the messianic hope of liberal democracy to the post-Soviet space as one would expect. On the contrary, the disintegration of the Soviet Union paved the path for more complex issues, which continue to strike millions of people. From a legalistic point, the post-Soviet space entered the modern lexicon at the moment when Soviet leaders signed the Belovezha Accords on the 8th of December 1991 by denouncing the 1922 Union Treaty. The preamble of the Accord, which states “the USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality is ceasing its existence,” was emblematic of the dawn of the post-Soviet space.

The dissolution of the USSR terminated the international legal personality possessed by the Soviet Union, which resulted in the emergence of 15 states. Throughout the existence of the USSR Soviets jurists often described all member states as the subjects of international law (Tunkin 1974: 34) and rights enshrined by Article 80 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution ensured that a Union Republic of the USSR has the right to enter into relations with other states. However, the sole power of international law decision making was consolidated within the ambit of Moscow. The 15 states were begotten by the disintegration of 1991 as newcomers to the late 20th-century international legal system through a collective recognition process. But, the stark reality that appeared before the newly emerged post-Soviet states was filled with the serious challenge of transforming themselves into democratic states. In contrast, most of the states grappled with the transition, as it seemed to be a double edge sword. The results of the referendum, which was held among the nine unions in 1991, show that the overwhelming majority of the people in those republics supported the idea of preserving the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet inheritance was not obliterated from the newly independent states overnight. Instead, it created an array of twisted complexities in the post-Soviet space as the societies were less prepared to welcome the Western-style democracy. The discontent between the political actors, who yearned for electoral government, and public opinion, which stood in favour of the Soviet system, became an obstacle in achieving the objectives of the post-Soviet democratisation. Svetlana Byem (1995) describes this anomalous situation that erupted after the dissolution of the USSR as “post-Communist Nostalgia.” However, despite all these challenges and discontents, the time for a change had come. And as the first president of the Soviet Union Gorbachev recently said, “perestroika was necessary,” and that even though many mistakes were committed during the process, he is convinced that “we were going in the right direction.”¹

Today, 30 years after the dissolution of the USSR, the post-Soviet space stands as a mixed story narrating the ups and downs of the nations that emerged after one of the greatest geopolitical transitions of the past century. A systematic crisis culminating in the disintegration of the old Soviet Union into independent states experienced a series of difficulties in its infancy stage and beyond. In particular, the conspicuous indicator of this problem related to the process of dismantling the old institution as the new institutions emerged after the disintegration stood on shaky ground. The ethnic discontent, authoritarianism and steep increase of corruption were the issues that undermined the progress of post-Soviet states in their liminal period. It is evident that the disintegration of the Soviet Union opened its own Pandora’s box of problems that went on to strike the newly born geopolitical terrain, and some Western scholars saw this uncertainty as the new Armageddon arising from the fall of the Soviet Union. For instance, regarding the economic crisis that encompassed the whole post-Soviet space, John Elliott and Abu F. Dowlah (1993: 530) comment:

Production has decreased significantly in the last year or so, and it continues to do so. The inflation rate is very high and accelerating. The Rube is virtually worthless and barter is beginning to replace monetary exchange. Trade is disrupted. Hunger or perhaps civil war threaten.

This statement by two American scholars is by no means an overly measured hypothesis reflecting the general perception that pervaded Western academia toward the post-Soviet space. After attaining freedom from the centralised Soviet yoke, the 15 independent republics sought their own socio-political destinies. Their quest for forming new identities has been hazardous as an array of new challenges emerged within the transitory period. Building a democratic statehood on the Soviet roots was and arguably still is a challenging task for the post-Soviet states. They all embraced the democracy path, at least “on paper,” without necessarily understanding or having experienced democracy. The change from autocracy to democracy is difficult, and as the case studies of this book will show, this process is far from complete. However, the diverse socio-political and cultural differences which are clearly evident in the post-Soviet space have generated multiple narratives among the 15 independent republics. For example, the robust democratisation process embraced by the Baltic states fastened their political outlook toward Europe, wherein the rest of the post-Soviet states began to grapple with various challenges. In general, many of the post-Soviet states today cope with their Soviet legacy, which continues to play an indispensable role in state institutions, law enforcement mechanisms and the political sphere 30 years after the extinction of the USSR.

2 Central Concepts of the Volume and the Methods

This book proceeds on the idea that the legacy left by the Soviet Union is a key factor that shaped and continues to influence the socio-political saga of the post-Soviet space. After the Soviet Union’s disintegration, the newly independent states were facing the challenge of building their statehood with all the legal, political, economic and societal aspects that this includes. The impact of the disintegration of the USSR created different outcomes in the newly emerged states. And this is mainly because the post-Soviet space represents a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic terrain which does not contain a monolithic structure. Consequently, as this work will unfold, the Soviet legacy(ies) may encompass a diversity of elements and manifest differently domain to domain, country to country.

In general, the definition of legacy stands as an abstract notion from a linguistic point of view. The meaning coined by the standard Oxford dictionary states “legacy is a situation that exists now, because of events, actions that took place in the past” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries 2013). The given definition explicitly denotes the connectivity of the past to shape present events as an indispensable factor. Nonetheless, examining the impact made by any legacy can become a hefty task when there is no clear yardstick to measure the gravity of it. It is the exact case that applies to the Soviet legacy. It is a notable factor that the scholarship which emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union has largely overlooked the uniqueness of the concept of “Soviet legacy.” Many scholars parochially confined their viewpoints to contemplating political and institutional authoritarianism, which has ultimately undermined analysing the Soviet legacy from a broader perspective. For instance, the research carried out by Anglo-American political scientists in the aftermath of the Soviet disintegration mainly narrates Soviet legacy as an ideological influence derived from Communist/Socialist roots. In particular, the work compiled by scholars like Tusker and Pop-Eleches mainly discusses the Soviet legacy from a sheer political perspective filled with Communist elements. The edited work of Tusker and Colten titled Patterns in Post-Soviet Leadership reflects the orthodox viewpoint of discussing the Soviet legacy as a continuation of the cult-based Stalinist system. Also, in the seminal work written by both Pop-Eleches and Tusker, Communism’s Shadow: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Political Attitudes, the authors analyse the legacy of Communism on political attitudes of the individuals who inhabit the post-Communist states. As such, in this and their subsequent work the focus is on the impact of the Soviet (see Communist) legacies on individuals’ political behaviour. Our stance on “Soviet legacy” in this book has a wider and more comprehensive approach as it digs into the diverse domains and fields where the Soviet legacy’s influence is palpable. In light of this context our analysis of “Soviet legacy” is mainly based on an empirical discourse rather than a theoretical one. This approach is fully supported by the country-based analysis of “Soviet legacy” of the chapters in this edited volume. By offering an up-to-date and fresh snapshot of the situation in the region regarding state-building, rule of law and good governance, as well as human rights law and practice, this interdisciplinary work offers a coherent explanation of the post-Soviet space through the lenses of Soviet legacy. As such, in using a more pragmatic and empirical approach, the authors representing different post-Soviet states aptly discuss the factual circumstances in the post-Soviet space by emphasising the Soviet legacy.

Soviet Legacy as a Historical Continuity

To better understand the value and effects of the Soviet legacy in the post-Soviet space, a historical view of the Soviet legacy is needed. In tracing the Soviet legacy from a historical perspective, it becomes evident that the mechanism adopted under Leninist–Marxian ideology in building the Soviet Union in 1922 was not purely based on an ideological impetus. In addition, the strong mode of centralisation under the Communist party appeared to be a salient feature at the very outset of the Soviet Union. Contrary to Lenin’s obsession with internationalisation, Stalin’s first five-year plan, which aimed at building socialism in one country, was part and parcel of the Soviet system. Throughout its existence, the people of the Soviet Union lived under three constitutions starting from 1924 to 1977. Taking the Soviet legacy as a methodological tool does not intend to idealise the memory of the Soviet Union that permeated among the people who lived under Moscow’s yoke. One’s attitude to the retrospective Soviet legacy may colour his or her judgment on multiple issues, in particular if someone defines the USSR as little more than a continuation of Russian imperialist rule. But, the Soviet legacy that we intend to use in this edited work is different from such a parochial negative interpretation as we use the phrase “Soviet legacy” from a broader perspective discussing how Soviet elements implanted their roots in the state institutional mechanisms.

Nevertheless, this book takes “Soviet legacy” as the connecting element in exploring its objectives in order to ascertain the very basis of the issues that encompassed the modern states in the post-Soviet space. It is possible to discuss the post-Soviet space as an entity akin to homogeneity considering the common historical paths of all the states under Moscow’s orbit. A vast array of developments that occurred in those 15 republics under the Soviet Union and the institutional, conceptual mechanisms that came into existence in that epoch were not withered away by the culmination of the “December Agreements” in 1991. On the contrary, the complexities and disputes generated within the 70-year period of the USSR reappeared in a different form in the newly born post-Soviet space. In tracing the Soviet legacy as its centralised connective tool, this book adheres to the historical truth of the Soviet Union as a “strictly centralised unitary state.” Notwithstanding the nominal authority enshrined by each Soviet constitution on the sovereign status of the republics, the real power was vested in the hands of the Communist party by making the centralised grip firm on its subjects. Much of the criticism was directed toward Moscow, as it was the cradle of the Soviet power and the bastion for Communist party leadership. One of the main legacies that still continues to strike major parts of the post-Soviet space is the legacy of “Russification,” which brought indelible changes to the nations, languages and ethnicities which had maintained their own distinctiveness prior to the formation of the Soviet Union (Martin 1999: 99–117). The introduction of bizarre borders and prioritising the Russian linguistic monopoly by abolishing the use of some regional languages were two of the massive changes adopted by the Soviets. Moreover, the political ideals planted by the Communist party in the Soviet space denoted its antagonism toward the individual-centric liberal democratic ideals revered in the West. For example, the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the 1936 Stalinist Constitution was viewed by the Soviets as a triumphant moment for all the subjects in the USSR, because at that time socio-economic rights were not guaranteed in many Western constitutions. Yet as history has shown the practicality of the realisation of human rights took a paradoxical direction in the Soviet Union. The legacy that stemmed from those Soviet reforms continues in the post-Soviet space by influencing the modern political realms of some of the former Soviet republics. Thus, contemplating the Soviet legacy as a kaleidoscopic tool helps to assess the themes this book is devoted to exploring.

Using “Soviet Legacy” as a Method

The “Soviet Legacy” concept is also used in this edited book as a methodological tool that all the contributors have embraced in developing their chapters under the themes such as state-building, the rule of law and human rights. In each theme, the contributors use the Soviet legacy to build up their contention by emphasising its gravity as a living element that continues in the state apparatus of the post-Soviet space today. Mark Kramer defines the word legacy “as a carryover of the institutions, practices or attitudes – in whole or in part – from polity A, which has ceased to exist, to a subsequent polity B” (Kramer 2019: 595–609). Kramer’s logic is well applicable to the post-Soviet space as the institutions and political mechanisms of many former Soviet republics embody the Soviet legacy from the past. But it is not entirely palatable to admit the Soviet legacy as a cherished treasure revered by the people in the former Soviet republics today. Such an assessment would only appease the apologists of the Soviet Union. In short, the legacy that this edited book uses as a connecting tool illustrates how various countries that arose after the disintegration reacted differently toward the Soviet legacy. In writing about the Soviet legacy in Central Asia, Marianne Kamp points out that none of the Central Asian states willingly embraced their Soviet legacy as they view the USSR as an empire that destroyed lives, crushed nations, stripped away freedom and allowed no dissent. But Kamp aptly shows how political institutions, practices and mechanisms that appeared in the Central Asian countries clung to the Soviet legacy in their practice regardless of the general disinclination toward the Soviet Union (Kamp 2016: 270–276). The impact of the Soviet legacy on the post-Soviet space is perhaps best reflected among the political elites, who took over the political institutions of the newly emerged states as they had derived their institutional training from the Soviet Union. This was clearly evident in countries like Belarus. On the other hand, the reception of the Soviet legacy in the Baltic countries is a different scenario, because the governments that emerged after 1991 attempted to negate every Soviet element from their political institutions. Each chapter contributor has looked into the scope of the legacy that the Soviet Union bequeathed to the post-Soviet space and the way it has been received.

3 Objectives and Structure of the Book

In the backdrop of such ...