ABSTRACT
As discussed in Chapter Four, in addition to arguing that culture is a barrier
to democracy promotion, some policy makers and scholars have maintained
that the authoritarian legacies in various post-Soviet countries mitigate the
development of a vibrant civil society and democracy (Brzezinkski 2002:
196; Gershman and Allen 2006; McFaul 2002: 264; Nodia 2002b: 203) as
well as being an obstacle to poverty reduction and development (Depart-
ment for International Development 2004). In an article co-written with
Michael Allen, the President of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Carl Gershman suggests that the failures of and backlash against
democracy promotion are a ‘by-product of so-called hybrid regimes’
(Gershman and Allen 2006: 37). Hybrid regimes, according to Gershman
and Allen, are those that have certain formally democratic procedures,
including the holding of relatively free (if not fair) elections and allowing
civil society organizations to function. In other words, hybrid regimes are
procedural democracies in which the substantive elements are either weakly
constituted or missing. Clearly, societies do not exist in a vacuum, and it is very important to examine and understand how the past has influenced and
continues to influence the present. In the post-Soviet states, certain practices
(such as corruption and clan-based rule), which were common under Com-
munist rule, persist and have influenced how the current policies have been
interpreted, adapted and operationalized.
