Towards Presidential Rule in Ukraine : Hybrid Regime Dynamics under Semi-Presidentialism

This article sets out to analyse recent regime developments in Ukraine in relation to semi-presidentialism. The article asks: to what extent and in what ways theoretical arguments against semi-presidentialism (premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems) are relevant for understanding the changing directions of the Ukrainian regime since the 1990s? The article also reviews the by now overwhelming evidence suggesting that President Yanukovych is turning Ukraine into a more authoritarian hybrid regime and raises the question to what extent the president-parliamentary system might serve this end. The article argues that both kinds of semi-presidentialism have, in different ways, exacerbated rather than mitigated institutional conflict and political stalemate. The return to the president-parliamentary system in 2010 – the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratisation – was a step in the wrong direction. The premier-presidential regime was by no means ideal, but it had at least two advantages. It weakened the presidential dominance and it explicitly anchored the survival of the government in parliament. The return to the 1996 constitution ties in well with the notion that President Viktor Yanukovych has embarked on an outright authoritarian path.

The travel imagination and the hybrid reality in the wake of colonialism

The “traveling imagination,” is of paramount importance to both western and postcolonial travelers. Since both groups create “travel imaginations” by extensive reading, the nature of the books that inform them must directly affect their travels. A westerner, for example, who reads only colonial-era accounts has the “travel imagination” of a different generation. If all perspectives were represented equally in libraries, the “travel imagination” of a given person would be entirely his/her own. But usually the “traveler’s imagination” is biased by prevailing opinion. Libraries are not democracies, and sometimes extensive reading only indoctrinates the reader with the biases of the canon. Perhaps the following generalization will be helpful. Westerners are able to create “traveling imaginations,” based on the books they trust. But postcolonials, who have reason to be suspicious of what they read, have complicated “traveling imaginations.” Sometimes postcolonial travelers base their “traveling imaginations” on what they read, and sometimes, in opposition to what they read. The books discussed in this thesis, In Patagonia, The Cruise of the Shark, The Happy Isles of Oceania, A Passage to England and The Enigma of Arrival, were first published in, 1977, 1939, 1992, 1971 and 1987, respectively, in what Ali Behdad calls the “age of colonial dissolution.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to say these books are set in the “age of colonial demolition.” For the most part, the empires in these texts are in ruins, or at least in the process of being dismantled. In fact, two of the authors, Nirad Chaudhuri and V.S. Naipaul are canonical post-colonial thinkers.