RUS BAŞKANLIK İKTİDARININ SİYASAL REJİM ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ: PUTİN VE YELTSİN DÖNEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Year 2020, , 305 - 324, 30.07.2020

Adnan Seyaz

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.771599

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı 1993 yılından bugüne Rus başkanlık iktidarının siyasal rejim üzerine olan etkisini karşılaştırmalı bir şekilde analiz etmektir. Yeltsin (1993-1999) ve Putin (2000-halen görevde) dönemleri öncelikle anayasada belirtilen başkanın yetkileri çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Shugart ve Carey’in (1992) Duverger’e (1980) referansla önerdiği gibi başkanlık sisteminin ortaya çıkışı, parlamento ve elitler arasında başkanın sahip olduğu destek incelenmiştir. Yanı sıra, özellikle başkanın siyasal kariyeri ile birlikte değerlendirildiğinde önem kazanan başkanın kamuoyu desteği de rejimin devamlılığı çerçevesinde dikkate alınmıştır. Rejim tipindeki değişimi teyit etmek için Freedom House ve Vocie & Accountability (V&A) değerlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Bulgular göstermektedir ki özellikle 90’ların ilk yıllarında Yeltsin, Batı ve demokrasi yanlısı bir duruş benimseyerek iktidarı oligarklar ve aile ile paylaşmak zorunda kalmıştır. Putin ise uluslararası konjonktürden de yararlanarak güçlü devlet anlayışı çerçevesinde iktidarını paylaşmamıştır. Anayasada yer alan yetkiler başkanın siyasal kariyeri ile birlikte ele alındığında Putin döneminde daha otoriter bir rejim oluşumunu kolaylaştırdığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Başkanlık Sistemi, Siyasal Rejim, Rusya Federasyonu, Otoriterleşme

THE EFFECT OF THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENTIAL POWER ON THE POLITICAL REGIME: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF YELTSIN AND PUTIN PERIODS

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of the Russian presidential power on the political regime in a comparative perspective since 1993. Yeltsin (1993-1999) and Putin (2000-incumbent) periods were analyzed firstly by examining the constitutional powers of the president. Shugart and Carey (1992), with reference to Duverger (1980), took the origin of the presidency and the degree of presidential support in parliament and among the elite under consideration. Besides, I also considered presidential popularity, keeping in mind the president’s political background, as a necessary factor to be counted in for both continuation and the change in a regime. In order to confirm the change in the regime type, Freedom House and Voice & Accountability (V&A) Scores were used. The findings put forward that during the first years of the 1990s Yeltsin had to share his power with oligarchs and the family by adopting a more pro-western and pro-democracy stance while Putin did not share his power, thanks to his strong state understanding in line with international conjuncture. It is determined that the powers embedded in the constitution together with the political background of the president paved the way for establishing a more authoritarian regime during Putin period.

Keywords

Presidential System, Political Regime, Russian Federation, Authoritarianism

References

• (1999) Russia: Towards authoritarian reform?. Annual Review of World Affairs. Strategic Survey. 100(1), 119-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/045.972.39908461114, (Access date: 05 May 2020).
• 1993 Russian Constitution (English). http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm, (Access date: 26 July 2018).
• 1993 Russian Constitution (Russian). http://www.constitution.ru/index.htm, (Access date: 26 July 2018). Average annual OPEC crude oil price from 1960 to 2017 (in U.S. dollars per barrel). Statista. https://www.statista. com/statistics/262858/change-in-opec-crude-oil-prices-since-1960/, (Access date: 30 September 2017).
• Beliaev, M. V. (2006). Presidential powers and consolidation of new post-communist democracies. Comparative Political Studies. 39(3),375-398.
• Chaisty, P., Cheeseman, N. & Power, T. (2014). Rethinking the ‘presidential debate’:Conceptualizing conditional politics in crossregional perspective. Democratization. 21(1), 72-94.
• Clark, W. A. (1998). Presidential power and democratic stability under the Russian Constitution: A comparative analysis. Presidential Systems Quarterly. 28(3), 620-637.
• Collier, D. & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics. 49(3), 430-451.
• Duma elections 1993-2003. Russia votes. http://www.russiavotes.org/duma/duma_elections_93-03.php, (Access date: 19 June 2018).
• Duverger, M. (1980). A new political system model: Semi-presidential government. European Journal of Political Research. 8(2), 165-187.
• Fish, M. S. (2005). Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gelman, V. (2014). The rise and decline of authoritarianism in Russia. Demokratizatsya. 22(4), 503-522.
• Horowitz, D. L. (1990). Comparing democratic systems. Journal of Democracy 1 (4). 73-79.
• Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Huskey, E. (1996). Democracy and institutional design in Russia. Demokratizatsiya. 4(4), 453-473.
• Ishiyama, J. & Velten, M. (1998). Presidential power and democratic development in post-communist politics. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 31(3), 217-233.
• Ishiyama, J. T. & Kennedy, R. (2001). Superpresidentialism and political party development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Europe-Asia Studies. 53(8), 1177-1191.
• Kakhishvili, L. (2013). Explaining democratic development in post-communist countries. https://www.e-ir. info/2013/04/08/explaining-democratic-developments-in-post-communist-countries/, (Access date: 13 October 2019)
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance ındicators: Methodology and analytical ıssues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 3(2), 220-246. doi:10.1017/S187.640.4511200046
• Levitsky, S. & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Linz, J. & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Linz, J. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy. 1(1), 51-69.
• Mainwaring, S. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies. 26 (2), 198-228.
• McFaul, M. & Markov, S. (1993). The Troubled Birth of Russian Democracy: Parties, Personalities and Programs. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
• Medvedev, R. (2000). Post-Soviet Russia: A Journey Through the Yeltsin Era. New York. Cambridge University Press.
• Myagkov, M. & Ordeshook, P. C. (1999). Changing Russia’s electoral system: Assessing alternative forms of representation and elections. Demokratizatsya 7(1), 73-92.
• Offe, C. & Adler, P. (1992). Capitalism by democratic design? Democratic theory facing the triple transition in East Central Europe. Social Research. 58(4), 865-892.
• Person, R. (2017). Balance of threat: The domestic insecurity of Vladimir Putin. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 8(1), 44-59.
• Petrov, N. (2002). Seven faces of Putin’s Russia: Federal districts as the new level of state-territorial composition. Security Dialogue (Sage Journals). 33(1), 3-91.
• Petrov, N., Lipman, M. & Hale, H. E. (2014). Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin. Post-Soviet Affairs. 30(1), 1-26.
• Primakov drive said to be behind Berezovsky-Smolensky warrants. (8 April 1999) Jamestown Foundation Monitor. 5 (68) https://jamestown.org/program/primakov-drive-said-to-be-behind-berezovskysmolensky- warrants/, (Access date: 09 October 2019).
• Putin Speaks. (2000, 27 March). The Globalist, http://www.theglobalist.com/putin-speaks/, (Access date: 16 August 2018).
• Rakhmanova, T. (2016). Rus İktidarının Kalbinde: Putin İmparatorluğunu Sorgulama. (R. Uzmen, Tran), Istanbul, Bilge Kültür Sanat.