Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

,

, ,


..

Abstract
The article is dedicated to discussion of the main features of political regime trans
formation in postSoviet Ukraine. In definition of political regime the author follows
the actorcentered neoinstitutional approach that allows to focus on individual and
collective social practices determined by actors interests, situation, and strategy of
action as well as limited by actors habitues, social skills, resources, and rules. The
author argues an illiberal democratic character of formal political regime, which was
embodied in the middle of 1990s in Ukraine, and discusses the zigzags of its future
development. The question about social and political factors of the Orange Revo
lution explosion is also examined.

, "
,
, ( )
( ) . "
, "
"

, "
,
.,
[1]. ,

1990" , "
.
: , , , 2005, 3

65

1990" "
. "
,
, "
,
. , "
.
., . . 1990"


vs . ,
, "
, , . "
, , , "
[2, . 223227]. "
"
.,
, "
(, , ) "
(, 1
.) [4]. , "
, , .
"
, "
. "
,
( "
), , "
, "
. 2004
. "
"
. ,
; "
, , "
, ,
.




,
. "
"
1

66

. . [3].
: , , , 2005, 3

1 ,
,
 , 
 2. "
"
, () ,
() ,
.
. . [6,
. 73]
"
" , "
, , "
, .
"
,
, "
, ,
( )
, , 
.
()
? "

. 
. "
, ,
[9]. "
, ,
, . ."
[10].
()
, 
. "
:
l (, ) "
;
l , ;
l , .
, . ."
. [11],
[4] , , "
(, . .)
.
1

., .: [5].

.: [68].
: , , , 2005, 3

67

.
, , . "
, "
: "
"
, , , , "
( . [12])
. ,
/ "
.
, "
: , , , PR, "
, "
, . "
"
, .,
, "
,
[13, . 190197]. 
. "
, ,
" , "
. ,

( ) .
(

,
[11, . 7]. "
"
, "

.
, ,
1900" "
" :
, , ,
; , "
.
, , 
. "

.

?
"
( "
) " ,
68

: , , , 2005, 3

( "
) , ,
. "
.
,
, "
, , "
, , 20032004

. . .
" ,
1990" , "
, ,
. "

( "
), "
.
, "
,
; .
, , "
, "
.
, "
,
. ,


1. "
,
, "
. "
, "
, "

.
,
"
.
,
, :
"
, 1990" ;

;
1

state capture .: [14].


: , , , 2005, 3

69

"
, "
;
1990"
";
, "
;
"
, .
1990" "
[15] , .
1990"

. 1993 , "

. "
, , 1994
"
7%12% ( "
)1 [16, c. 20].

,
,
(. 1). "
, 1,52
.
"
., , ,
.
"
, ,
( ) 
,
"
.
1993 
,
, .
,
1997 ,
; 2003
1

, "
. "
, "
, , "
. 
.
70

: , , , 2005, 3

"
64% [17, c. 2021].
, 2003 2004

. "
, 60%68%
,
(. 2), 20% ,
.
2000 , , 42%
,
,
2003" 2002 "
2004"
29% [17, c. 33]. 1990"
, ,
. , "
"
, ; "
"
; "
.

, 
, 
. "
.
2000"

,
.
2000" "
, 

.
2001 , "
, ,
.
.
2000" "
" "
. "
. ,
,
"
,
2004 [. .: 18].
(
) 2004
: , , , 2005, 3

71

: "
, , "
" "
. ,
, "
.

( , , "
), , "
;
, "
. 2000" (, ,
"
) "
,
"

.
"
, 1999 2002
, 

( , . "
[19, c. 234]).
,

. ,
"
(63%).

, , , 
; ,
, , 
,
, , 
.
20032004
,
:
)
"
"
;
) "
, , ,
"
.
2000" "
(1) , (2)
72

: , , , 2005, 3

, "
, , , "
, "
, (3) (. 3).

( ,
)
.

( "") "
: "

"
. "
, ,
. "
, "
2004 
: "
, "
, ( , 49%
. . 1, 2). "

( )
.
"
"
, "
2004 .
2004" ( "
60%) ,
. ", "
,

(. 4, 5). , "
,
(. 4, 5) 
, "
.
, "
, , ,

, : .
2004
: "

, 1 2004 . 
,
? , 40%
: , , , 2005, 3

73

, 38% "
(. 6). "
, 2004
21% "
, .
, ""
, , "
, ,
, ,
, , , 
. "
(1)
, , (2)
"
, (3) "
1. (.)
(). "
"
, . ,
, "
, . "
"
.


"
.
, , "
2006 , "
. "

,
,
, "
() .

,
, .

, "
. [20].
74

: , , , 2005, 3

,
, "
..
20032004 :
1. ,
, 2003
. 1189 .

1,4%. , "
. 18
, .
2. 
2004
2004 . 787 . "
"
2,2%. , "
. 18
, .
3. , 11 19 "
. "
. 348 . "
" "
(
, , "
,
, ,
).
4.
, "
14 19 2004 .
1201 . "
1,8 %. "
, "
. 18 ,
.
5. 
, , 5 7 "
2004 . 780 . "
.

: , , , 2005, 3

75

2003

()

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

2004

. 1.
,
(n = 1200, % , 2003 , 2004 )

8.7

19.7

40.3

, 510

18.3

, 5

6.4

6.6
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

. 2. : ,
?
(n = 1200, % , 2003 )

2,41

2,72


()

2,78

3,4

3,68
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

. 3. "
, , 2004
( , 5 ,
1 )
76

: , , , 2005, 3

:

...
( , 2004 , n = 1201)
...
( )?

... ?

1.

48,1

1.

51,6

2.

26,1

2.

21,4

3.

25,8

3.

27,0

2

, ...
( ; , 2004 , n = 1201)
1. ... ,

48,9

... ,
3. ..., "

31,6

2.

3,9


4.

...

4,4

5. ...

11,2

29

26

18

25
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

. 4.

( 2004 , ., n = 1201, % )

: , , , 2005, 3

77

13

,
,

56

,
, ,

19

,
,

10

20

30

40

50

60

. 5.

,
( 2004 , ., n = 1045, % )

40%

38%


22%

. 6. :

, 1 2004 . ,
?
( , 2004 , n = 780, % )

1. . . . "
/ . ... ., 1988.
2. Rose R., Mishler W., Haerpfer Ch. Democracy and its Alternatives. Understanding
Post"Communist Societies. Baltimore (Md.), 1998.
3. .. // "
: , , / ..., .."
. , 2004. . 354376.
4. Carothers Th. The End of the Transitional Paradigm // Journal of Democracy.
2002. Vol.13. 1. P. 621.
78

: , , , 2005, 3


5. . : , , "
. ., 1995. .918; .. . ., 2001.
.6399; : / . ."
, ., .. ., 2000. . 1660.
6. ODonnell G., Schmitter P. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclisions
about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore, 1986.
7. Scharpf F.W. Games Real Actors Play. Actor"Centered Institutionalism in Policy
Research Boulder. Oxford, 1997.
8. : , , /
. ... , 2004. . 1726.
9. Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Com"
parative Research // World Politics. 1997. Vol. 49. 3.
10. Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven; L., 1971; 
. , . ., 1995. . 354378.
11. Zakaria F. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy // Foreign Affairs. 1997. Vol.76;
Merkel W., u.a. Defekte Demokratie. Opladen, 2003; ., .
// . 2002. 1.
.617.
12. .. : , , "
. ., 1996.
13. . . . . ., 1995.
14. Hellman J.S., Geraint J., Kaufman D., Schankerman M. Measuring Governance, Cor"
ruption and State Capture. How Firms and Bureaucratics Shape the Business Environment in
Transition Economics // World Bank Policy Research. 2000. Paper 2312.
15. Linz J.J., Stepan A. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Bal"
timore (Md.), 1996.
16. 19942004: / . ."
. ., 2004.
17. ., . : "
2003. . "
, 2004.
18. Kutsenko O. Process and Outcomes of Economic and Political Elite Networks Crystal"
lization (the case of Ukraine) // Cohesion and Division of Economic Elites in Central and
Eastern Europe / Ed. by G.Lengyel. Budapest, 2004. P. 205221.
19. . . 19932000. M.,
2000.
20. . :
// . 2004. 4 (7). . 316.

: , , , 2005, 3

79

Оценить