Books
-
Whitmore S, State-Building in Ukraine: The Ukrainian parliament, 1990-2003, Routledge (2004)
ISBN: 9780415651929 eISBN: 9781134321483
Abstract This book examines the development of the Ukrainian parliament - the Verkhovna Rada - from before Ukraine's independence in 1991 to the present. It shows how the parliament transformed itself from a provincial republican Soviet to the national legislature of a sovereign state and from a nominal, symbolic body to a genuine legislative and representative institution. It discusses the key role of parliament in the wider state-building process and examines the evolution of political factions and the committee system in the parliament.--Provided by publisher.
Website
Journal articles
-
Whitmore S, 'Disrupted Democracy in Ukraine? Protest, Performance and Contention in the Verkhovna Rada'
Europe-Asia Studies (2019)
ISSN: 0966-8136
Abstract Protest performances inside parliament articulated claims to uphold democracy that contributed to the maintenance of pluralism in Ukraine during attempted authoritarian consolidation. Simultaneously, such protests were para-institutional instruments in the ongoing power struggle engendered by a patronal system where formal institutions and norms weakly constrain actors. A diverse repertoire of protest, including rostrum-blocking, visual protest, withdrawal, auditory disruption, somatic protest and the spectacle, was used frequently and was adapted in response to changes in the political opportunity structure. Innovations to the repertoire adapted performances from social movements. In recent years, violent altercations and theatrical protests in Ukraine’s parliament involving tens of deputies have attracted attentive publics to a wide range of issues from language use, imprisoned opposition politicians and deputies’ multiple voting violations, but such spectacular performances belie hundreds of routinised deputies’ protests on procedural and policy matters. Both raise important questions about Ukraine’s political system and democratic practice1 more widely. How should we understand such protests, which are conducted by elected representatives that are already privileged in the system of power and have a range of formal legislative tools for protest at their disposal (Spary 2013), but choose instead to disrupt parliamentary proceedings? Why were such modes of behaviour so prevalent in Ukraine? What do the adaptation of distinctive types of protest reveal about the political system? Could such protests actually signify the vibrancy of democratic practice in Ukraine?
-
Whitmore S, 'The Origins of Protest and Disruption in the Ukrainian Parliament'
Neprikosnovenniy Zapas (2018)
ISSN: 0869-6365
-
Whitmore S, 'Авторитарная консолидация и народное сопротивление: размышляя о причинах «евромайдана» = Authoritarian consolidation and popular resistance: Analysis of the Causes of 'Euromaidan''
Neprikosnovennyi Zapas (93) (2014)
ISSN: 0869-6365
Website
-
Isaacs R, Whitmore S, 'The limited agency and life-cycles of personalised dominant parties in the post-Soviet space: the cases of United Russia and Nur Otan'
Democratization 21 (4) (2014) pp.699-721
ISSN: 1351-0347 eISSN: 1743-890X
Abstract
Vladimir Putin’s United Russia and Nursultan Nazabayev’s Nur Otan represent a distinctive
type of dominant party due to their personalist nature and dependence on their presidential
patrons. Such personalism deprives these parties of the agency to perform key roles in
authoritarian reproduction typically expected of dominant parties, such as resource
distribution, policy-making and mobilising mass support for the regime. Instead United
Russia and Nur Otan have contributed to authoritarian consolidation by securing the
president’s legislative agenda, stabilising elites to ensure their patron’s hold on power and
assisting in perpetuating a discourse around the national leader. However, because these
parties lack the agency to reproduce themselves, to entrench their position and to play more
than a supportive role in regime consolidation the life-span of such personalist dominant
parties is likely to be significantly shorter than that of dominant parties.
Website
-
Whitmore S, 'Шоу продолжается: выборы, «Единая Россия» и режим Владимира Путина = The Show Must Go On: Elections, United Russia and the Putin Regime'
Neprikosnovennyi Zapas 87 (1) (2013) pp.22-32
ISSN: 0869-6365
Website
-
Whitmore S, 'Parliamentary oversight in Putin's neo-patrimonial state: Watchdogs or show-dogs?'
Europe-Asia Studies 62 (6) (2010) pp.999-1025
ISSN: 0966-8136
Abstract
Conceptualising Russia as a neopatrimonial state directs attention to the patrimonial relations that pervaded formal institutions to reveal increasing tensions within the state during Putin's presidency. A case study of parliamentary oversight practices points to the emergence of legitimation as their key purpose, but also to the growing contradictions between the controlling and legitimating impulses of Putin's regime. At the same time deputies responded to the changes in their status and influence by moving their resources towards the patrimonial sphere, most notably utilising oversight institutions for direct and indirect private interests-”activities tolerated by the regime in exchange for political loyalty.
Website
-
Whitmore, S, 'Raising the Effectiveness of Parliamentary Oversight in Ukraine'
Parlament 1 (1) (2010) pp.30-32
-
Whitmore S, 'Гражданин как эраст: эротическая метафора и идея взаимности в надгробной речи Перикла = Green shoots or withering roots? : parliamentary oversight in the 4th Duma'
Neprikosnovenniy Zapas 57 (1) (2009) pp.111-121
ISSN: 0869-6365
Website
-
Whitmore S, 'Challenges and Constraints for Post-Soviet Committee Systems: Exploring the Impact of Parties on Committees in Ukraine'
Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (1) (2006) pp.32-53
ISSN: 1357-2334 eISSN: 1743-9337
Abstract This study focuses on the impact of parliamentary parties on committees' structure and activity in the post-Soviet context. Through a case study of committees in Ukraine's Rada, the paper demonstrates that weak, fluid parties can act as a barrier to committees' efficacy by shaping their structure, leadership and by blocking ameliorating reforms. Although Ukraine's committees were formally allocated a significant role in the law-making process, in practice the realisation of this function was constrained by parties and also by context of the wider institutional uncertainty.
Website
-
Whitmore S, 'State and Institution Building Under Kuchma'
Problems of Post-communism 52 (2005) pp.3-11
ISSN: 1075-8216
-
Whitmore S, 'Faction Institutionalisation and Parliamentary Development in Ukraine'
Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 19 (4) (2003) pp.41-64
ISSN: 1352-3279 eISSN: 1743-9116
Abstract The institutionalization of factions in Ukraine’s parliament has proceeded in a patchy, uneven manner as a consequence of cross-cutting incentives created by the Constitution, lower order rules and the actions of the president. Although factions became more organizationally complex and disciplined, membership instability significantly undermined these developments so that factions remained weakly institutionalized. Despite this, factions came to exercise greater influence over the parliamentary leadership and the legislative process, largely thanks to the formation of Ukraine’s first parliamentary majority in 2000. However, as this majority was orchestrated by President Kuchma, Ukraine’s parliament remained vulnerable to external pressure.
Website
Book chapters
-
Whitmore S, 'Ukraine's European Integration and the Role of Parliament' in Copsey N, Mayhew A (ed.), European Neighbourhood Policy: The Case of Ukraine, University of Sussex. Sussex European Institute (2007)
Website
-
Whitmore S, '‘"Damit mussen wir leben": Das neue Parlament und das neue Regierungssystem der Ukraine' ('We have what we have' The New Parliament and the New Political System in Ukraine)' in Pleines H (ed.), Die Ukraine unter Prasident Jushtschenko Auf der Suche nach politischer Stabilitat, Forschungsstelle Osteuropa Bremen Arbeitspapiere und Materialien (2006)
-
Whitmore S, 'Does Institutional Design Matter? Evidence from Ukraine's Parliament, 1990-2000' in Bredies I (ed.), Zur Anatomie der Orangen Revolution in der Ukraine: Wechsel des Elitenregimes oder Triumph des Parliamentarismus?, Ibidem ()
Reviews
-
Whitmore S, review of The Central Government of Russia: From Gorbachev to Putin., in Slavonic and East European Review 85 (2007) pp.186-188ISSN: 0037-6795
-
Whitmore S, review of Revolution in Orange: the Origins of Ukraines Democratic Breakthrough., in International Affairs 82 (2006) pp.1190-1191ISSN: 0020-5850 eISSN: 1468-2346
-
Whitmore S, review of Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine., in Europe-asia Studies 57 (2005) pp.163-165ISSN: 0966-8136
Other publications
Whitmore, S. State-Building in Ukraine: The Ukrainian Parliament, 1990-2003, RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, IBSN 978-0-415-33195-1 (hbk), ISBN 978-0415-65192-9 (pbk)
Whitmore, S. GSDRC Applied Knowledge Services Helpdesk Report No.1146, ‘Political Party development in Ukraine’, 2015, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4409.1360
Whitmore, S. 'Авторитарная консолидация и народное сопротивление: размышляя о причинах «евромайдана»', ('Authoritarian consolidation and popular resistance: Analysis of the Causes of 'Euromaidan'), Neprikosnovennyi Zapas, 2014, 93(1)
Whitmore, S. 'Shou prodolzhaetsya: vybory, "Edinaya Rossiya" i rezhim Vladimira Putina' ('The Show Must Go On: Elections, United Russia and the Putin Regime'), Neprikosnovennyi Zapas, 2013, 65(1), pp.22-32
Whitmore, S. ‘Ukraine's European Integration and the Role of Parliament' in Nathaniel Copsey and Alan Mayhew (eds) European Neighbourhood Policy: The Case of Ukraine, Seminar Series in Contemporary European Studies, University of Sussex: Sussex European Institute, 2007, pp. 45-57
Whitmore, S. ‘Man spielt den Regeln und nicht nach den Regeln: Politische Ungewissheit in der Ukraine' (‘Playing with the Rules, Not by the Rules: Political Uncertainty in Ukraine'), Ukraine-Analysen, 2007, no. 19, pp. 2-6
Whitmore, S. ‘Challenges and Constraints for Post-Soviet Comittee Systems: Exploring the Impact of Parties on Committees in Ukraine', Journal of Legislative Studies, 2006, vol. 12, no. 1, pp.32-45
Whitmore, S. ‘"Damit mussen wir leben": Das neue Parlament und das neue Regierungssystem der Ukraine' ('We have what we have' The New Parliament and the New Political System in Ukraine) in Heiko Pleines (ed.) Die Ukraine unter Prasident Jushtschenko Auf der Suche nach politischer Stabilitat, 2006, No.75 ed., Forschungsstelle Osteuropa Bremen Arbeitspapiere und Materialien pp. 35-39
Whitmore, S. ‘Does Institutional Design Matter? Evidence from Ukraine's Parliament, 1990-2000', in I. Bredies (ed.), Zur Anatomie der Orangen Revolution in der Ukraine: Wechsel des Elitenregimes oder Triumph des Parliamentarismus?, Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2005, pp.85-113
Whitmore, S. 'Faction Institutionalisation and Parliamentary Development in Ukraine', The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 2003, vol.19, no.4, pp.41-6
Whitmore, S. 'Fragmentation or Consolidation? Parties in Ukraine's Parliament', Research Papers in Russian and East European Studies, ResPREES 02/02, University of Birmingham: 2002, ISBN 07044 23626. Downloadable PDF available from: http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/research/ResPREES/index.htm