Strong Leaders in the Former Soviet Union: Successful or Simply Authoritarian?

Abstract

The term "strong leader" is generally understood to mean a leader who concentrates power in his or her hands, dominates public policy and the political party to which he or she belongs, and takes the big decisions. Many contemporary politicians present themselves as leaders in this mold and there is substantial public support around the world for this type of leader. Recent research, however, has questioned the desirability of strong leaders, finding that they are high-risk individuals who often have negative records in office. This article is concerned specifically with the personalist authoritarian strong leaders who hold office in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), a grouping that has received little attention in this emerging literature. The article sets out to ascertain whether these personalist authoritarians have been successful leaders as well as strong ones. We undertake this by examining performance (according to a variety of socio-economic and governance indicators) in the 15 states of the FSU in the period 2000-2020. This study finds no evidence of exceptional performance in the states with personalist authoritarian leaders in this time period. Rather, what these personalist leaders have offered is authoritarianism, poor governance, and socio-economic performance that is middling to poor.