Nartsiss Shukuralieva, D.Sc. (Political Science), researcher at Kujawy and Pomorze University, Bydgoszcz Department of Administration and International Relations (Bydgoszcz, Poland)


The transformation and democratization processes have given rise to several regimes that are difficult to define and cannot be classified in the traditional categories of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and democracy. Contradictory types of democratic and nondemocratic regimes are creating unusual political systems that can be defined as hybrid regimes, imitative democracies, or delegative democracies. The ambiguity of these regimes is making it difficult to classify them according to the well-known categories. On the one hand, they contain many elements characteristic of an authoritarian regime, while on the other, they appear to be close to democracy. As J. Linz showed, the authoritarian elements are related to the instability of the political system, the continuous constitutionalization of which has introduced ambiguity into the rules of the game. The democratic elements, in turn, are related to the declared adherence to the democratic idea expressed in constant political revision of the constitutional norms. This situation, which is typical of many states (not only of hybrid, but also of democratic regimes), is manifested very clearly in Kyrgyzstan.

Historical Prerequisites

The political system that has been forming in Kyrgyzstan for 16 years is akin to a mobile, chaotic regime. Amendments and addenda were made to the Constitution almost every two years (1994, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007) and..

Please fill subscription form to obtain full text of this jounal

SCImago Journal & Country Rank
build_links(); ?>
 - Advertorial UP - E-MAIL