Reconceptualizing political leadership in the post-Soviet space

Abstract

Models of political leadership in the post-Soviet states, despite many similarities, maintain their specificity. Their polarization is clear, and the direction of evolution, despite the existing political declarations and constitutional provisions, turns out to be chimeric and challenging to define. Especially since the totalitarian heritage of not "leadership" but rather "command and enslavement" is still firmly embedded in the mentality of those who rule the state and society itself. The paper examines how the model of political leadership has developed in the so-called transition countries in the post-Soviet area. The research is based on a multi-track analysis, including the specific features of particular states and regional and global settings. The study poses a question of how civilization changes affect political leadership. Thus, the reflection on the leadership crisis also occurs: is it an ontological crisis in the sense of negating the concept of leadership from the emerging political order, or is it a result of the need to redefine the existing leadership paradigms in order to adapt them to new conditions of social life? The current civilization changes undermine the existing authorities and power hierarchies and radically change the mechanisms that organize the social order. At the same time, the concept of a" leader" is gaining popularity, with connotations other than political leadership. Although the transformation in the post-Soviet states is characterized by the depreciation of traditional understanding of political leadership, the post-Soviet leaders feel more confident in expanding their power. Paradoxically, there are autocratic leaders who, to a limited extent, attempt to create democratic transformations (e.g., Kazakhstan), while others, having legitimate power, distance society from democratic standards towards systemic breakdown (e.g., Belarus). There are also societies where leadership is determined by kinship and clan bonds (e.g., Central Asian countries). In this respect, the paper claims that two opposing tendencies can be noticed in the life of transition societies: on the one hand, the depreciation of the traditional institution of leadership (in public perception), and on the other, the tendency of political elites to consolidate the hierarchical structures of power. In transition societies, a strong state equates to solid leadership. Due to the threats, e.g., in the Central Asian republics, such as extremism, armed conflicts, fundamentalism, or nationalism, the need for strong leadership with anocratic features of both authoritarianism and democracy becomes justified during the transition period. In the models of the political leadership of transitional states, the national specificity of individual countries is strongly emphasized. However, the era of political leaders - the charismatic heroes - appears to end because the attributes assigned to them so far (intuition or political character) do not withstand the requirements of contemporary social life anymore. The practice of the post-Soviet transitional states shows that the time of the struggle for the "legitimacy of leadership" is the most corrupt period in politics. The changes that undermine the existing leadership axioms in the transition countries are opposed mainly by those with the most to lose, including current leaders and bureaucratic and political elites. In today's world, politics "without ideology" is gaining popularity in societies (with all its marketing support). Hence, in transition countries, political leaders remain vigilant against new technologies' impact on their leadership style. The post-Soviet leaders are progressive and open-minded only insofar as the technological revolution does not threaten their position. The process of civilization changes manifested in many new phenomena, such as changes in the perception of the leader's role or technological development, prompts the redefinition of the leadership model not only in the post-Soviet states.