Department of Political Science

Mongolske mirakler og centralasiatiske skuffelser: Nomadekultur, klanpolitik og den 16. republik.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Michael Seeberg, Denmark
  • Department of Political Science

How can countries like Mongolia and the Central Asian countries develop so differently in terms of regime type, when they share approximately the same Soviet legacy? Mongolia’s democratic trajectory since the collapse of the Soviet Union is surprising, given that the country lacks crucial democracy-advancing features. The explanation lies in a combination of nomadic culture, clan politics, and Mongolia’s status as not being de jure member of the Soviet Union. The Central Asian countries were full members but had relatively large autonomy from Moscow, as long as they upheld order. This created a room for clan politics to permeate the regimes in contrast to Mongolia, which was under greater Soviet control. Consequently, Mongolia has managed to stay on the straight and narrow path to democracy while the Central Asian countries have all fallen deeply into autocracy. Thus, the countries’ different legacies have had direct impact on the chances for consolidating democracy after independence, indicating that it takes a major structural change to tear down clan politics.

Translated title of the contributionMongolian Miracles and Central Asian Disappointments: Nomadic Culture, Clan Politics and the 16th Republic
Original languageDanish
JournalPolitica - Tidsskrift for politisk videnskab
Pages (from-to)315-330
Number of pages16
Publication statusPublished - 2009

    Research areas

  • Democratization, Comparative politics, Clan politics, Post-communism, Mongolia, Central Asia

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 21874852