The Hypothetical Reformation Of Uzbekistan

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

The December of 1991 marked the end of the Soviet Union—and with it, an entire era. Like the February Revolution of 1917 that ended tsardom, the events leading up to August 1991 took place in rapid succession, with both spontaneity and, to some degree, retrospective inevitability. To understand the demise of Soviet Union is to understand the communist party-state system itself. Although the particular happenings of the Gorbachev years undoubtedly accelerated its ruin, there existed fundamental flaws within the Soviet system that would be had been proven ultimately fatal. The USSR became a past chapter of history because it was impossible to significantly reform the administrative

For example, Iran has a strong political and military influence on other governments in states such as Iraq and Lebanon, which they are able to make use of in their desire to spread authoritarianism. Additionally, Russia is capable of invoking fear and violence to support separatist movements in Georgia and Ukraine, demonstrating similar methods of spreading their governmental form. Furthermore, China has globally supplied other dictatorships, such as Iran and Uzbekistan, with surveillance technology to increase repression on their citizens. All of these actions together are creating a difficult environment for democracy to prosper. The decline of democracy is causing a shift in the mindset of citizens in both authoritarian and democratic states as people begin to realize that their form of government may not truly be the best form of

For over 2 centuries, Afghanistan has known virtually no time without war. Beginning around 326 B.C. with the conquests of Alexander the Great, to the Persians, British, Russians and most recently, America and our NATO allies, Afghanistan has been cultivated into the country that it is today through a trial by fire. Regardless of this relentless onslaught of foreign military power, the Afghan people have tirelessly defended their homeland with no outside power ever being able to subdue them completely. Following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989, the country fell into civil war, torn even further apart by fiercely dedicated tribal warlords. This power vacuum led to the rise of a group called the Taliban. Led by a one eyed man

Since the writing of the Russian constitution in 1993, the presidency has been a concentration of power that has ultimately led to the demolition of democracy in the country in contrast to France’s success. The basis of the president’s power in each respective country is vastly different: in the 1993 Russian constitution, the president’s powers are multifarious, in the French Fifth Republic constitution, the president does not “directly govern” (Cases, O’Neil, 162). Much

In 1989, the world saw the fall of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R.), which was also known as the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a block of 15 Communist Eastern European states that was ruled by one government with various puppet governments located throughout the states. Its collapse brought about new issues that the world had never had to deal with before. The fall of such a large block of Soviet states created many problems and some of the solutions that were used to solve these problems, as well as many of the tensions that were created during this time, still affect the world today. Some of the ramifications resulting from the Soviet Union’s collapse are still being felt; however, many problems have been solved

Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the disintegration of a country based on an uncompromising ideological dogma, the unlikely inheritor of Marxist/Leninist communist philosophy. The Soviet Union’s unwieldy economic superstructure left it vulnerable to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive economic/military policy, an approach based on the belief that a military build-up would force the Soviets to spend to keep pace, an effective strategy because it pushed the Soviet economy over the edge into ruin. The subsequent implosion ended communist domination in Eastern Europe and opened the way for democratic elements that radically altered the political landscape in Moscow. When the Soviet Union officially came to an end in 1993, it briefly recalled the end of tsarist rule in 1917, with the potential for the kind of chaos and violence that turned the Russian Revolution into a bloodbath. President Boris Yeltsin used the military to disband parliament but his call for new elections moved the country toward a more open, democratic form of government. Lacking any real background in representative government, Russia ultimately proved incapable of fulfilling the promise of democratic government and descended into a form of anarchy riddled by increasingly strong criminal elements. In recent years, the rise of Boris Putin, a new strongman in Moscow, helped restore a sense of order and allowed the resurgence of communist elements. The government that now holds power, and which

Moscow, U.S.S.R. 19 September, 2020. Instead of in our world when it collapsed in 1989, the Soviet Union managed to pull through the tough time, but now it couldn’t. Rioters crowded the streets, attempting to penetrate the defenses of the buildings holding state officials. Only the KGB remained loyal to its government, while the U.S.S.R.’s enemies watched smugly, and the Warsaw Pact Nations defected to NATO. A civil war in Cuba ended communism there, and Anti-Communist factions in all nations were at strong points.

United States citizens generally also have the right to vote due to their democratic government, and many post-soviet citizens are now able to boast the same. Voting in these places is a hard-fought right. Rachel Denber, Deputy Director, Europe and Central Asia Division of the Human Rights Watch organization, writes about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and about the expectations involved. Many people immediately thought that without communism in the ex-union the governments would immediately turn to democracy. Those people were wrong because communism still ruled unfortunately (Denber 1). Any entity opposing those in power was effectively countered, and in many cases imprisoned for trumped up charges. Newer politicians developed to try to swing the system towards democracy, but initially failed. Putin has surprisingly been in power for a over twenty-five years with no political opposition, but fortunately there are now countries within this category that have developed their own systems of government to include democracy. Denber says that in Ukraine the “Orange revolution” of 2004 ousted the government’s manipulations and put Viktor Yushchenko into power through sequential democratic elections. A similar revolution in Georgia, the “Rose Revolution” of 2003, led to a

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

Nishapur is a city in the Razavi Khorasan Province in Iran and was a regional capital and important center of agriculture, commerce, and learning. (Bulliet, 1975) Nishapur reached the height of its prosperity under the Samanids in the 10th century. (Kröger, 1995) The Samanid Dynasty was the first native dynasty to arise in Iran after the Muslim Arab conquest and led the revival of Persian culture. (Ridgeon, 2012) It was known for the driving force it gave to Iranian attitudes, beliefs, and learning. Samanid rule is part of the so-called Iranian Intermezzo, which saw the creation of a Persian Muslim culture and identity that brought Iranian speech and traditions into the fold of the Islamic world. (Canfield, 2002) The Islamization of Iran transformed

Nondemocratic regimes are more than the lack of democracy in a state. “Those in which a political regime is controlled by a small group of individuals who exercise power over the state without being constitutionally responsible to the public” (O’Neil 178). Now that we have a correct and working definition, we can see where each state fits in O’Neil’s “Models of Nondemocratic Rule”. Russia fits in this model because it is the category of personal and monarchal rule. This category is defined as “rule by a single leader with no clear regime or rules constraining that leadership” (O’Neil 198). It falls in this category because the current presidency of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Putin stepped down from being president in 2008 after serving the two 6 year limits and became prime minister where he still called all the shots (O’Neil, Fields, and Share

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.