Volume 11 - Issue 58
/ October 2022
47
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.58.10.5
How to Cite:
Skrypniuk, O., Melnykovych, M., Strunevych, O., Kubko, A., & Saranov, S. (2022). Transformation of the political regime in
Ukraine in the times of independence: stages and features. Amazonia Investiga, 11(58), 47-56.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.58.10.5
Transformation of the political regime in Ukraine in the times of
independence: stages and features
Трансформація політичного режиму в Україні за часів незалежності: етапи та
особливості
Received: October 2, 2022 Accepted: November 5, 2022
Written by:
Skrypniuk Oleksandr17
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5620-7762
Melnykovych Mykhailo18
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-7595
Strunevych Oleksandra19
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2359-103X
Kubko Andrii20
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2870-8567
Saranov Sergiy21
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9707-7730
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to study the
peculiarities of the transformation of the political
regime in Ukraine at different historical stages of
its independence. The subject of the study is the
political regime of independent Ukraine. The
research methodology includes the following
methods: transitological, normative and value,
sociological, comparative, systemic, structural
and functional, neo-institutional. Results of the
research. The approaches to the concept of
political regime and its varieties are analyzed.
The stages of its transformation in Ukraine are
highlighted and it is determined that they are
“tied” to the person of the president. The
peculiarities of political regime of the times of
independence during the passage of each of the
cycles are established. Practical meaning. Based
on the features of the political regime in
independent Ukraine during the periods of rules
of different presidents and in various stages, we
conclude that the political regime in our country
has all the signs of a hybrid one, and Ukraine is a
"partially free country". Value/originality. It is
proven that the decentralization of management
17
Candidate of Law Sciences, Senior Researcher at the V.M.Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
18
PhD in Law, Associate Professor of Law and Public Administration Department of King Danylo University, Ukraine.
19
Doctor of Law Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Scientific Institute of Public Law, Ukraine.
20
Candidate of Law Sciences, Doctoral Student at the V.M.Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
21
Candidate of Law Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Scientific Institute of Public Law, Ukraine.
48
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
in Ukraine multiplied by the intensification of
political competition, the implementation of
European values and the improvement of legal
awareness and culture of our citizens could
become a reliable foundation for the formation of
a democratic Ukrainian society.
Keywords: historical stages, hybrid regime,
independent Ukraine, political regime, President.
Introduction
Political regime is a form of organization and
functioning of the political system, which refers
to specific procedures and methods of
organization of government institutions,
relations between citizens and the State,
decision-making process, etc. In essence, this
concept means how the government and the one
who heads it use power, control and manage
social processes. Political regimes are
distinguished according to the following criteria:
1) the method of formation of authorities; 2) the
relationship between the central and regional
authorities; 3) the position and role of political
parties, public organizations in public life;
4) legal status of the individual; 5) political
culture; 6) nature of implementation of State’s
power; 7) the way of forming the authorities.
There are 3 main types of political regimes:
totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic ones.
30 years is too short a period to change the
country's civilizational vector, but it is quite
enough for the rules of political behavior to be
formed and sufficient experience to be
accumulated, which can be analyzed in the
categories of the existing political regime. In
general, the concept of political regime is key to
understanding the political processes taking
place in the State. After all, it is the content of the
political regime that reflects the real relationship
between the government and society in the
country, the real picture of the principles of
organizing the political life of a particular
society.
Therefore, given the concerns related to the
prospects for the development of democracy in
Ukraine and the current problems threatening the
lives and health of people, the stable functioning
of economic mechanisms, and the existence of
society (Kharytonov et al., 2021, p. 158), the aim
of the Article is to study the peculiarities of the
transformation of the political regime in Ukraine
at different historical stages of its independence.
Methodology
The study of the general democratic process and
its impact on the situation in the "transitional"
states within the transitological paradigm made it
possible to present the course of political life as
a constant change in the social existence of ideas,
social groups, institutions, and practices, which
are not fixed in the categories of statics, because
the political process itself is a dynamic
phenomenon with many possibilities and
directions.
The transitological approach helped to identify
and analyze the factors of political changes, as
well as to consider unstable, shaky, but at the
same time complexly organized systems in the
most difficult period of their development – the
search for the optimal form of self-organization
based on the rethinking of world experience and
actualization of historical and cultural potential.
The regulatory and value approach provided an
opportunity to find out the meaning of
democratization for society and individual, its
assessment from the point of view of the
common good, justice, will, respect for human
dignity and other values.
The sociological approach was useful for
clarifying the dependence of democratization
processes on society, social conditioning of
political phenomena, including the influence of
economic relations, social structure, etc. on the
political system.
The comparative approach was used for the
comparative analysis of democratic transit
processes in Ukraine in different periods in order
to identify their regularities and discrepancies.
The structural and functional approach was used
when considering democratic political system,
which has a complex structure, each institution of
which has a specific purpose and performs
Skrypniuk, O., Melnykovych, M., Strunevych, O., Kubko, A., Saranov, S. / Volume 11 - Issue 58: 47-56 / October, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 58
/ October 2022
49
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
specific functions (roles) aimed at meeting the
relevant needs of the system.
The neo-institutional approach made it possible,
on the one hand, to reveal the dynamics of the
evolution of institutions, and on the other hand,
to focus attention on the subjective perceptions
of political actors regarding the functioning of
institutions. This approach made it possible to
reveal the dialectical relationship between
political figures and the changes in the political
system of Ukraine.
Literature Review
One of the characteristic definitions of the
political regime belongs to M. Duverger (2002),
who considered it in one case as "a structure of
government, a type of human society that
distinguishes one social community from another
one" and in another as "a combination of a party
system, a method of voting, one or several types
of decision-making, one or several structures of
pressure groups".
Historical experience allows us to state that there
can be varieties of democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian regimes. Moreover, each political
regime is unique both in the context of its
emergence and in relation to the legitimating
methods and technologies that contribute to its
formation and ensure its existence. In this case,
the relation of the ruling elite to the imperatives
of socio-economic development is
fundamentally important for distinguishing
different types of political stability and. For the
purpose of self-preservation and gaining
legitimacy, the elite strive to maintain the
existing order, protecting society from wars,
conflicts and revolutions. However, sooner or
later the regime faces a dilemma: whether to act
as an initiator of socio-economic changes or
resist their onset, risking being removed from the
political arena. From this point of view, the
government, depending on the socio-economic
situation, can contribute to the preservation of
stability in society in two ways – either through
adherence to tradition, or through effective socio-
economic development. It is appropriate to note
that any concept of the classification of political
regimes has, among other important elements, a
pronounced and significant legitimizing
component. Legitimacy and political regime are
inseparable concepts both in the realm of
political theory and in political practice (Kelman
& Murashyn, 2005, p. 152).
Among the Ukrainian scientists, who studied the
political regime, in particular, the democratic
one, we can highlight Sribna, who in the research
"Development trends of the democratic
transformation of the political regimes of
Ukraine and the Republic of Poland in a
comparative analysis" (2012) compares the
democratic regimes of Ukraine and Poland,
which at the turn of the 21st century solve similar
problems of transformation and overcoming the
totalitarian legacy.
Vegesh and Kopolovets (2020) consider such a
political trend as democratic transitology. Their
work focuses on the analysis of the transition of
communist authoritarian regimes to democracy.
Kroitor in the study "Models of democratic
transitions and the practice of their application in
post-Soviet countries" (2018) defines three
models of political transit, namely: the model of
direct transition; model of two-phase transition;
the "reverse development" model. The factors
that contributed to the success of the democratic
transition in the Baltic countries are also
highlighted.
Results and Discussion
The general analysis indicates that five main
periods can be distinguished in the
transformation of the political regime of Ukraine:
1) the end of the 1980s – 1996; 2) 1996–2005;
3) 2005–2010; 4) 2010–2014. 5) 2014 – until
now. As we can see, with the exception of the
first period, the others are “tied” to the president.
And this is not accidental. As evidenced by
historical experience, the role of a political leader
in transitional periods is extremely important. It
is he and his political will that can become a
generator of changes and reforms in all spheres
of social life, determine the future of the State,
especially in transitional, transformational
societies (Tomakhiv, 2014, p. 336).
Zelenko (2021, p. 143) also agrees with this
periodization; she proposes the following cycle
of political regimes: 1) transitional state with
super-parliamentarism (1991 – 1996); 2) hybrid
state with an authoritarian regime (1996 – 2004);
3) hybrid state with an electoral regime (2004 –
2010); 4) hybrid democracy with authoritarian
regime (2010 – 2014); 5) hybrid state with an
electoral regime (2014 – until now).
During the first period of the transformation of
the political regime in Ukraine, the destruction of
totalitarianism and the emergence of some
democratic elements of the functioning of the
political regime took place: the absence of
political repression, the emergence of ideological
50
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
and political pluralism and the establishment of
political parties, freedom of speech, relatively
democratic elections at various levels of
government on this basis. At the same time there
was a legislative enforcement of these changes,
which in a holistic general form ended with the
adoption of the new Constitution in 1996
(Tomakhiv 2014, p. 337).
According to the Basic Law of Ukraine (Law of
Ukraine No. 254k/96-VR, 1996), Ukraine is a
sovereign and independent, democratic, social,
legal state. Proclamation that Ukraine is a
democratic State, means that it is based on the
exercise of real people’s power, respect for the
rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens,
on their active participation in the formation of
the State apparatus and the exercise of control
over its activities through elections and
representative institutions. Democracy has its
support and functions successfully in the
conditions of a developed civil society and its
institutions, such as the market economy,
political parties, public organizations,
independent mass media, etc. In accordance with
these requirements, Ukraine must create
conditions for the effective functioning of civil
society structures. A democratic state is
considered to be characterized by the following
features: guaranteed basic rights and freedoms of
citizens, their equal rights to participate in state
management; electability of State representative
bodies and individual officials; the legally
defined term of office of representative bodies;
implementation of the principle of separation of
powers; control and responsibility of state
bodies, political diversity; majority decision,
taking into account minority rights; transparency
etc. (however, as it is correctly noted by Rudyi
and others (2021, p. 288), the presence of formal
features of a democratic regime does not always
ensure the functioning of such mechanisms and
institutions of democracy as the division of
power, freedom of speech and assembly, fair
elections and others). The principle of a
democratic state is specified and developed in
other articles and sections of the Constitution,
which are devoted to the issues of legal
regulation of ensuring the interests of people,
conducting referenda and elections, formation of
the highest bodies of state power and control over
their activities, establishment of local self-
government. Democracy is closely related to the
characterization of the state as legal and social
one. Democracy promoted through gradual State
sovereignty of Ukraine means the supremacy of
state power over any other power within the
country and its independence from any other
power outside its borders (Tatsii, Petryshyn &
Barabash 2011, pp. 7 – 8).
Unfortunately, the adoption of the Constitution
did not become an indicator that our country
"turned" to the democratic vector of its
development. Despite the established norm of a
"democratic, social, legal state", people's elected
representatives neglect the implementation of
laws, which is the exact opposite of the concept
of a "democratic regime". In addition, for almost
two decades, elements of «political staging»
were present in even seemingly transparent and
fair elections, because many voices were
«bought» by unscrupulous politicians who gave
people money or other preferences in exchange
for «tick» opposite the required surname in the
bulletin.
All this undermined citizens' trust in political
institutions and deepened the split between the
population, because some resigned themselves to
the idea that "nothing depends" on them and their
expression of will, or kept the problem silent due
to pressure or intimidation; others rebelled
against the system, periodically holding mass
meetings and demonstrations and presenting
their demands and ultimatums to the leadership.
Voting often meant not a choice but an obligation
to local elites who could give or take away jobs,
contracts or money. While many Ukrainians have
rebelled against the system, periodically taking to
the streets with mass demonstrations, others have
learned to remain silent under pressure to
participate in highly manipulated campaigns and
voting.
Currently, the issue of the political regime in
Ukraine is ambiguous. It would be premature to
speak of a point of no return in democratization.
During the years of independence, the level of
democratization in the state, according to
international experts, fluctuated significantly.
Such indicators as the rule of law, the
development of democratic institutions, the state
of development of civil society and the
participation of the people in the management of
the state were taken as evaluation criteria. In
2003, Ukraine took the 44th position out of 117
surveyed countries. In 2006, our country was
ranked 37th out of 120 countries, in 2008 – 35th
out of 126 surveyed countries, in 2010 – 37th out
of 129 surveyed countries. Indicators fell sharply
during the presidency of V. Yanukovych: in
2013, Ukraine’s democratization rating was 60th
among 129 countries. In the middle of 2014, the
level of democratization somewhat increased and
our country became the 58th in the rating (Yepur
Volume 11 - Issue 58
/ October 2022
51
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
2020, p. 22); however, in 2020, it was ranked
29th out of 167 countries.
This situation is a consequence of the fact that in
the history of Ukraine last 100 years there was a
competition of ideas on its political system. Thus,
famous political figures had different points of
view on this issue. Hetman Skoropadskyi, for
example, was inclined to monarchist views;
Symon Petliura is a a left-wing politician who is
valued primarily for his military achievements.
But the intellectual foundations of Ukrainian
democracy were laid by Mykhailo Drahomanov,
who advocated liberal values and social equality,
personal freedom and civil rights. Many of his
ideas, which shaped the politicians of subsequent
generations, are still relevant for Ukraine, for
example, his attention to local communities and
giving them maximum rights to solve local
problems. Some scientists suggest looking for the
roots of Ukrainian democracy in European
civilization, to which Ukraine belongs. And the
main thing that laid this tradition - the division of
power between church and secular. The absence
of one center of power later led to the emergence
of other independent institutions, and they, not
political ideas, created the foundation for
democracy. And, finally, closer to modern times,
the Ukrainian democratic movement was
founded by dissidents who were released from
the Hulah by the Soviet authorities shortly before
that. These dissidents were based on human
rights ideas and legal instruments that had deep
European roots. "They believed in competitive
politics. They were real national democrats, far
from any nationalist extreme right-wing
extremist ideas (Shchur, 2021).
Perhaps paradoxically, Soviet institutions
contributed to the later democratic structure of
Ukraine in a way that was hardly noticeable to
researchers. Power in the Ukrainian SSR was
characterized by the division of authorities
between the party and state apparatus, strong
local elites, and weak leadership.
Centralized administration did not exist in
Ukraine until 1917, but in Soviet times, despite
the fact that the republican model of
administration was preserved, the formal leaders
of the Ukrainian SSR – the first secretary of the
Communist Party and the head of the government
– had no actual authority; they were responsible
for the implementation of the policy formulated
in Moscow. Besides, the republican leadership
was deprived of control over material resources
on the ground, so it played, at best, the role of a
mediator between the Ukrainian regions and
Moscow. So when the old Soviet nomenclature
created the office of the president in 1992, it
looked at the model of the first secretary of the
Central Committee – a politically weak figure.
As a result of this system, the new Verkhovna
Rada in independent Ukraine was fragmented but
institutionally strong, and the presidency was
weakened, with the government having greater
powers than the president. The legacy of the
USSR also left powerful regional elites (Shchur,
2021).
From the day the Declaration on State
Sovereignty was announced on July 16, 1990,
until the inauguration of the first president on
December 05, 1991, the parliament was the only
place where all the most important decisions
were made, which in a year led the Soviet
republic to independence. The very successful
work of the Verkhovna Rada created all the
grounds for Ukrainians to take a different path
even then than most of their neighbors from the
"prison of nations" and, unlike them, to build a
parliamentary, not a presidential or semi-
presidential republic.
But Ukrainian politicians by inertia equaled and
competed with Moscow, so they created the
institution of the president and endowed it with
considerable power. However, in the first years
of independence, the Verkhovna Rada had a high
degree of independence from the president. The
deputies of that convocation were elected in the
Soviet Union, before the institution of the
president, who in all subsequent election cycles
will directly or indirectly affect the receiving
deputy’s mandate (Zabolotnyi & Ocheretiana,
2021).
The term "kuchmizm" is associated with the
second president of Ukraine. It is used to denote
the regime of the President of Ukraine Leonid
Kuchma, which arose and lasted in Ukraine
during 1994–2004. "Kuchmizm" was formed as
a result of fusion of old Soviet officials with
regional criminal elites; is a type of post-Soviet
regimes. Its features are very high corruption of
the state apparatus, decorative democracy, the
unity of legislative, executive and judicial power
as an integrated mechanism of control over
society and guaranteeing the stability of the
regime with the help of "power structures" not
under the control of society, and the
concentration of power in the hands of a single
financial multi-party corporation (Churylova,
2018).
During the 10 years of his policy, President
Kuchma, unfortunately, despite the existence of
the Constitution, led the independent Ukrainian
52
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
state to the so-called quasi-democracy, that is, to
some extent, the old system of administrative
management was reproduced, a clear evidence of
which is the Administration of the President with
its unconstitutional powers that performs
approximately the same functions as the former
Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU,
when the government, local administrations,
courts, prosecutor's office, and everything that is
in Ukraine acts according to “telephone
instructions”.
During the years of Kuchma’s rule, it was not
possible to achieve the main thing on which the
democratic system is based – the creation of
powerful ideological parties that fight for the
trust of the voter in the elections, and then,
having power, show how they fulfill their
campaign promises (Zilhalov, 2004).
During the presidency of Viktor Andriyovych
Yushchenko, the sprouts of the formation of
democracy were quite tangible; it concerns
freedom of speech, expression of opinion and
views, as well as the right to elections without
falsifications. A lot of facts about historical and
events that were previously hushed up or hidden
(for example, the data about the Holodomor as an
act of genocide of the Ukrainian people,
organized by the leadership and government of
the USSR, became widely publicized). The
biggest achievement during his rule is that as a
result of the Orange Revolution, democracy
became the only system in Ukraine. Our State,
one of the post-Soviet countries, received the
rating of a free country in the assessment of the
human rights organization Freedom House. In
many ways, this became possible thanks to the
third President of Ukraine.
Yushchenko advocated a strong state power with
a democratic distribution of powers, duties and
responsibilities between all branches of
government, demanded the abolition of
parliamentary immunity, as well as a numerical
reduction in the number of people’s elected
officials and an increase in the powers of the
regions.
However, Viktor Yushchenko’s time in power
ended with significant disappointment for
Ukrainians. Unlike the authoritarian Kuchma, he
could remain in the people’s memory as a great
democrat. Instead, his presidency was
remembered for eternal confrontation with both
political opponents and longtime allies, as well as
the lack of systemic political and economic
reforms. This helped his successor Viktor
Yanukovych easily usurp power.
On assuming the post of head of state by Viktor
Yanukovych, it became clear that difficult times
have come for Ukrainian democracy. Changes to
the Constitution of Ukraine, which were adopted
during the Orange Revolution in 2004, prevented
Yanukovych from becoming a dictator.
Therefore, the system of government began to be
turned back so that the President could appoint
and dismiss ministers, the Prosecutor General
and the head of the Security Service of Ukraine.
All this was possible in the 1996 version of the
Constitution. Therefore, in July 2010, 252
People’s Deputies appealed to the Constitutional
Court to find out whether the changes to the
Constitution in 2004 were adopted according to
the correct procedure. The Constitutional Court
agreed that the procedure was violated because
the Parliament did not have 300 votes in favor of
introducing new amendments to the Basic Law,
and abolished the corresponding amendments
“behind closed doors”. On September 30, 2010,
the Ukrainian state machine began to work again
under the terms of the 1996 version of the
Constitution (Zabolotnyi & Ocheretiana, 2021).
Therefore, the power of the 4th President can be
called corrupt authoritarianism, because due to
the pressure on the Constitutional Court and the
violation of all current norms of Ukrainian
legislation, he returned the Constitution of 1996,
which was actually a usurpation of power,
because the entire state machine was once again
in the same hands. All this became the reason for
the organization of Euromaidan – protest actions
of 2013 – 2014, caused by the refusal of the state
leadership from the European integration course,
corruption and arbitrariness of law enforcement
officers.
His goal was to depart from the Soviet, imperial
past, which once again «took the upper ground»
in the state mechanism, and the movement to
Europe, the implementation of European values,
to which Ukrainian society has always aspired
(this is confirmed by a number of sociological
surveys).
The result of Euromaidan was the return of the
Basic Law of Ukraine in the version of 2004 with
the redistribution of powers to the parliamentary
republic, the cancellation of 80 legislative acts
that were illegally adopted in 2010 – 2011 and
gave the president excessive powers, the escape
of Viktor Yanukovych and the appointment of
early presidential elections, based on the results
of which Petro Poroshenko took power.
In the first month of his presidency, Petro
Poroshenko signed the Association Agreement
Volume 11 - Issue 58
/ October 2022
53
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
with the European Union, the work on which has
been ongoing since the time of Viktor
Yushchenko. The economic part of the Free
Trade Area Agreement first became operational,
and since September 2017, the agreement has
been fully operational. The Association
Agreement with the EU is a massive document
with seven chapters and more than a thousand
pages, which clearly regulates the gradual
economic and political rapprochement of
Ukraine with the European Union. However, it
does not contain a clear guarantee of Ukraine’s
future accession to the EU (Zanuda &
Chervonenko, 2019).
The fight against corruption was both one of the
priority tasks during the rule of Petro Poroshenko
himself, and the main request of our Western
partners, so new anti-corruption bodies were
created and their work was launched: the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau (deals with
countering corruption and other criminal
offenses committed by high-ranking officials and
pose a threat to national security), the Specialized
Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (an
independent structural unit of the Prosecutor
General’s Office, which supervises the
observance of laws during operational and
investigative activities by the National Anti-
Corruption Bureau of Ukraine), as well as the
National Agency for Corruption Prevention (the
central body of the executive power with a
special status that ensures the formation and
implementation of the state anti-corruption
policy).
However, there were problems there too. The
People's Deputies, despite the Constitution, gave
the president extraneous powers regarding the
creation of NABU, the formation of competitive
commissions for the selection of the director and
his appointment to the post. And the
Constitutional Court later decided that it is wrong
to do so, and the head of NABU should be
appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers
(Zabolotnyi & Ocheretiana, 2021).
These factors resulted in a significant drop in
Petro Poroshenko’s rating, a loss of voter
confidence, and the re-election of Volodymyr
Zelenskyi as president in the regular elections in
2019. However, as Poroshenko himself noted, “I
do not consider the elections that took place as a
defeat. And this makes me more proud that a new
democratic tradition has been established in
Ukraine. It was a free and fair election in which
my opponent won, and I congratulated him with
the victory," said Poroshenko. I can proudly say
that I brought my country into a new era of
freedom and democracy in accordance with
European standards” (Poroshenko, 2019).
Zelensky won the sympathy of voters not by
bribery, but by sincerity, frankness, accessibility,
transperancy, maintaining constant contact with
Ukrainians and, of course, humor. Even at the
pre-election stage, he declared his commitment
to European values and undertook to implement
them in life. In particular, he announced the
development of a mechanism by which only the
People of Ukraine will form the main tasks for
the government through referenda and other
forms of direct democracy. It was also
announced to reduce the functions of state
bodies, as well as to reform the territorial
organization of executive power, which provides
for the elimination of duplication and the
completion of decentralization of the powers of
local state administrations and local self-
government bodies.
However, during three years of Zelenskyi’s rule,
systematic violations of the Constitution have
become inseparable from his activities. At first,
these were various assignments of the
government, which the president cannot give
according to the Constitution. In 2021, decisions
of the National Security and Defense Council
were added to them. This body has never been as
influential as it was during Volodymyr
Zelenskyi’s time. Now there are meetings of the
National Security Council almost every Friday.
And after them, the president signs decrees that
often contradict the Constitution and laws, but
satisfy the public demand for decisive actions
and support the president’s rating. So, under the
6th President, they came up with the idea how
way to use the NSDC in a new way: to impose
sanctions on Ukrainian citizens and their
enterprises. In many cases, this helps to remove
the influence of clearly hostile characters, but the
president cannot replace the court and the entire
law enforcement system. Therefore, although the
introduction of sanctions has high support among
Ukrainians, it contradicts the Constitution
(Zabolotnyi & Ocheretiana, 2021).
In February 2022, from the moment of Russia's
full-scale invasion of the territory of Ukraine,
Volodymyr Zelensky directed the spirit,
patriotism and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people
in the struggle for the independence of our State,
defending its democratic ideals and the right to
political independence. In his numerous
speeches, he repeatedly emphasized that in this
difficult but decisive time, the whole world
should unite to protect democracy, because if the
54
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
enemy wins, it and its achievements will be
forgotten.
For the protection of democratic values in his
own country and abroad, President Zelenskyi
became one of the five laureates of the private
Profile in Courage Award from the Foundation
of the Library of the former US President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, and for the same reason he
became the Person of the Year according to the
Times magazine.
The question arises whether Ukraine will adhere
to its democratic course even after the end of the
war, or will return to the imitation of the popular
expression of will, which was bought with
money and food packages. This problem will be
especially acute against the background of the
economic decline of our country and the total
impoverishment of the population, which will be
ready to "sell" their votes for a promise to repair
or build new housing, provide jobs or
humanitarian aid, and therefore we will once
again return to "political theater" and false
democracy.
In conclusion, we note that the majority of
Ukrainian scientists characterize the political
regime of Ukraine as transitional one. At the
same time, a specific feature of such a regime is
its periodicity, that is, over time it must change to
another, or take shape in a permanent model. In
our country, in different periods, a democratic
regime alternated with an authoritarian regime
with elements of totalitarian and oligarchic ones.
The combination of features of different types of
political regime in Ukraine allows us to come to
the conclusion that since 1996, a hybrid political
regime has prevailed on the territory of our
country, which combines both authoritarian and
democratic methods of exercising power.
According to Western researchers of hybrid
political regimes Levitsky and Way (2002), there
are three basic factors that guide a regime of this
type: 1. leverage, that is, the influence of the
closest trade and financial partner, its democratic
or authoritarian state; 2. linkage, that is,
involvement, when the regime is either open to
the other world with a wide range of connections,
or is a closed and isolated type; 3. the internal
organizational structure, i.e. the efforts of the
political regime to build a system of democratic
institutions within itself. In this sense, such an
effort can be successful or fail.
The essence of the hybrid political system is the
coexistence of formally democratic political
institutions with specific political practices, a
consequence of which life is not "by law" but "by
concept" - unwritten rules, which are so deeply
rooted in social and political life that in the most
profitable spheres of the economy displaced the
formal ones, which, in turn, took the form of a
facade, while real political processes take place
through the interaction of formal and informal
institutions. The specific interweaving of these
institutions and the resulting formation of
extremely specific political practices constitute
the essence of the clan-oligarchic (hybrid,
neopatrimonial) political regime (Zelenko, 2021,
p. 144).
The biggest problem in the research of
intermediate types of political regimes is that a
large number of terms are used in the literature,
which do not exclude each other at all, but
prevent the formation of a general classification
and further conceptualization of this
phenomenon. One of the attempts to develop a
unified theoretical and methodological approach
to the analysis of such regimes was made by
German researchers Wolfgang and Croissant
(2000). To denote the entire set of regimes of this
type, they introduced the concept of "defective
democracy" – the system of domination, in which
the access to power is regulated by means of a
significant and effective universal "electoral
regime" (free, secret, equal and universal
elections), but at the same time, there are no other
guarantees of basic political and public rights and
freedoms, and horizontal power control and
effectiveness of democratically legitimate
authorities are seriously limited. The researches
drew special attention to the fact that in defective
democracies informal rules and patterns
(clientelism, personalism, comprehensive
corruption or cartels of actors arising outside
constitutional boundaries) undermine and limit
the order of functioning of formal,
democratically legitimized institutions.
Having analyzed a number of scientific works in
this area, Zelenko (2021, p. 176) comes to the
conclusion that specific interweaving of formal
and informal institutions and the resulting
formation of extremely specific political
practices constitute the essence of the clan-
oligarchic (hybrid, neopatrimonial) political
regime, which is a rather specific horizontal and
vertical division of power according to a formally
defined constitutional principle characteristic of
full-fledged democracies (separation of
legislative, executive and judicial power, a
system of checks and balances, general and equal
elections, an outwardly legal and social state,
political pluralism, fairly effective forms of
Volume 11 - Issue 58
/ October 2022
55
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
political and public participation, people are the
source of power, etc.).
Based on the features of the political regime in
independent Ukraine during the rule of different
presidents and in different periods, we conclude
that the political regime in our country has all the
signs of a hybrid one, and Ukraine is a "partially
free country".
Conclusion
For more than 30 years of its existence, the
political regime in Ukraine "walks in circles",
alternating democratic and authoritarian methods
of governance and retaining the signs of hybrid.
Unfortunately, neither the Orange Revolution
nor the Euromaidan could turn Ukrainian society
towards a democratic vector of development,
however, they contributed to the overthrow of the
clearly criminal government and contributed to
institutional changes, which, in turn, laid the
ground for qualitative changes in the political
regime (expansion of the competence of the
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and return to the
parliamentary-presidential republic; the creation
of special bodies designed to fight corruption, in
particular, at the highest levels; the introduction
of electronic declaration of income for officials
and monitoring their lifestyle, the development
of electronic governance of the country – all
services provided by various state bodies are
becoming available for citizens online, which
helps to create a service-oriented State, etc.).
Unfortunately, with the beginning of Russia’s
full-scale war against Ukraine, the signs of the
weakening of our State, caused, first of all, by the
low dependence of political parties on voters, the
shadow economy, corruption, selectivity and
inconsistency during the implementation of
reforms, began to manifest themselves even more
acutely. Therefore, the legitimate question is
whether Ukraine will stick to its democratic
course after the end of the war, or return to an
autocratic political regime.
The key to preserving the unprecedented
participation of Ukrainians in democratic
governance processes, in our opinion, may be
decentralization, which the Ukrainian
government began implementing after the
Revolution of Dignity in 2014. These
administrative changes, which focus on the
transfer of powers to local governments, are
designed to stimulate the accumulation of efforts
at the primary level, improve the lives of
communities, encourage accountability and
transparency of the implementation of powers on
the ground, and bypass certain existing networks
of patronage. The principles of Ukrainian
decentralization, in turn, require a strong national
leader who would be able to resist the obvious
centrifugal forces. The decentralization of
management in Ukraine multiplied by the
intensification of political competition, the
implementation of European values and the
improvement of legal awareness and culture of
our citizens could become a reliable foundation
for the formation of democratic Ukrainian
society.
Bibliographic references
Churylova, K. (2018). The second President of
Ukraine Leonid Kuchma turned 80.
ZAXID.NET.
https://zaxid.net/drugomu_prezidentu_ukray
ini_leonidovi_kuchmi_vipovnilosya_80_rok
iv_n1463167
Duverger, M. (2002). Political parties (translated
from French). Moscow: Academic Project.
https://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Poli
t/Duverg/index.php
Kelman, M., & Murashyn, O. (2005). General
theory of state and law: textbook. Kyiv:
Kondor.
https://library.nlu.edu.ua/POLN_TEXT/KNI
GI/KONDOR/ZAG_TEOR_2005.pdf
Kharytonov, E., Kharytonova, O., Kolodin, D.,
Tkalych, M., Larkin, M., Tolmachevska, Y.,
Rojas-Bahamon, M.J.,
Arbeláez-Campillo, D.F., & Panchenko, O.I.
(2021). Distance learning in the conditions of
Covid-19: problems and prospects of their
solution. Amazonia Investiga, 10(48),
pp. 157-169.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.48.12.17
Kroitor, A. (2018). Models of democratic
transitions and the practice of their
application in post-Soviet countries. Current
Problems of Politics, 61, pp. 215-226.
https://acortar.link/b0W4I3
Law of Ukraine No. 254k/96-VR (1996).
Constitution of Ukraine. Official Web site of
the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, June 28,
1996. Available online.
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D
0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2002). “The Rise of
Competitive Authoritarianism”. In: Journal
of Democracy, 13(2), pp. 51-65.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/levitsky/files/SL_
elections.pdf
Poroshenko, P. (2019). I brought Ukraine into a
new era of freedom and democracy. LB UA.
https://lb.ua/news/2019/05/20/427280_poros
henko_vivel_ukrainu_novuyu_eru.html
56
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Rudyi, N., Makarchuk, V., Zamorska, L.,
Zdrenyk, I., & Prodan, I. (2021). Democratic
state-legal regime: Twenty-First Century
threats. Amazonia Investiga, 10(44),
pp. 288-294.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.44.08.28
Shchur, M. (2021). Ukraine: democracy by
default or conscious choice? in Harvard.
RadioSvoboda.
https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/ukrayina-i-
demokratiya-dyskusiya-
istorykiv/31088581.html
Sribna, T. (2012). Development trends of the
democratic transformation of the political
regimes of Ukraine and the Republic of
Poland in a comparative analysis. Bulletin of
the National Technical University of Ukraine
"Kyiv Polytechnic
Institute". Political Science. Sociology. Law,
4(16), pp. 7–11. http://visnyk-
psp.kpi.ua/article/view/33678/30264
Tatsii, V., Petryshyn, O., & Barabash, Yu.
(2011). Constitution of Ukraine: Scientific
and practical commentary. Kharkiv: Pravo.
https://library.nlu.edu.ua/POLN_TEXT/KNI
GI-2012/Konst_Ukr_2011.pdf
Tomakhiv, V. (2014). Political Regime
Transformation in Independent Ukraine:
general tendencies, peculiarities, definitions.
Ukrainian Science: past, present, future, 19,
Part 1, pp. 336 – 342.
http://dspace.wunu.edu.ua/bitstream/316497/
5582/1/%d0%a2%d0%be%d0%b%d0%b0%
d1%85%d1%96%d0%b2%20%d0%92..pdf
Vegesh, M., & Kopolovets, R. (2020). Models of
democratic transformation of Z. Brzhezynsky
and A. Pshevorsky and their role in modern
political science. Visnuk of the Lviv
University. Series Philos.-Political Studies,
32, p. 88–94.
https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/bitstream/l
ib/31696/1/14.pdf
Wolfgang, M., & Croissant, A. (2000). Formal
institutions and informal rules in defective
democracies. Political Quarterly, 41,
pp. 3-30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24
8115006_Formal_institutions_and_informal
_rules_in_defective_democracies
Yepur, M.V. (2020). Transit democratic political
regimen as a phenomenon of the XXI
century. Scientific Notes of Taurida V.I.
Vernadsky National University, Series: Legal
Sciences, 31(70), pp. 20-25.
https://www.juris.vernadskyjournals.in.ua/jo
urnals/2020/1_2020/6.pdf
Zabolotnyi, N., & Ocheretiana, M. (2021).
History of Presidents of Ukraine in seven acts
or why the theater of one actor does not suit
us. Center of Common Actions.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2021/12
/1/7315876/
Zanuda, A., & Chervonenko, V. (2019). 5 Years
of Poroshenko in Figures and Facts: Which
Country the President Leaves. BBC News
Ukraine.
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-
48011503
Zelenko, H. (2021). Transformation of the
political regime in Ukraine during the years
of independence: democracy vs oligarchic
cronyism. The political process in
independent Ukraine: results and problems
(pp. 139 – 176). Kyiv: National academy of
sciences of Ukraine. Kuras institute of
politics and ethnic studies.
https://ipiend.gov.ua/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/politychnyi_protses
_u_nezaleznii_ukraini.pdf
Zilhalov, V. (2004). Results of Leonid Kuchma's
10-year term as President. Radio Svoboda.
https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/917631.htm
l