This report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. Ukraine remains far from a robust democracy and qualifies as a consolidated hybrid state. Despite more than 25 years of government development since independence, Ukraine continues to experience difficulty shedding the legacy of the Soviet era in order to advance to a truly democratic state. This thesis seeks to understand Ukraine's regime development and why the country experiences difficulty strengthening democratically. Drawing on theories of democratic consolidation and the rise of hybrid regimes, this thesis explains how and why Ukraine has consolidated into a competitive authoritarian state of government vice a true democracy. Analyzing six different criteria of regime development, including choices, institutions, elections, accountability, civil society, and economics, this thesis determines that while democracy exists on paper, overall, more than a quarter century of political development in Ukraine failed to bring robust democratic governance to this nation. As a result, Ukraine remains in a hybrid condition with democratic and autocratic elements living in constant tension with each other. Thus, the prospects for a strong democracy in Ukraine in the near future remain wishful thinking at best, unless Ukraine can find a way to radically break with its past.
Chapter I covers the literature behind democratic consolidation, as well as a brief history of Ukraine. Consolidation theory seeks to understand what makes a strong democracy, what happens when democracy fails to consolidate, as well as the rise of authoritarian and hybrid systems of government. Ultimately, scholars attest to the development and analysis of six different criteria for determining a government's development toward better democracy. These same criteria nest hand-in-hand with determinants for failed democracies and the rise of authoritarian / hybrid states. Following a discussion of the theory, the remainder of Chapter I provides a brief history of Ukraine, covering key events, timelines, and characters that are present throughout the remainder of the thesis. As such, applying the six developmental criteria across Ukraine's history will determine if Ukraine has consolidated closer to a democracy after 25 years, and if not, then what have they consolidated into and why.
Chapter II explores the development and evolution of Ukraine's political institutions. Key decisions following independence caused lasting implications for the nation's stagnation towards democracy. The persistence of communist influence after independence shattered chances at a meaningful transition to democracy. Rather, the communist presence tainted the new government, stagnated reform, and allowed corruption to take hold. From the beginning, Ukrainian institutions failed to adhere to democratic norms, and these flawed norms became entrenched. At the same time, the flaws created incentives to cheat and commit fraud as a means to retain power. Even elections, a fundamental pillar of democracy, remain defective in Ukraine's political system, creating uneven barriers for opposition victory. Ukraine's institutions and practices remain deeply flawed and fail to serve the public or advancement of the state, which is far from democratic in nature.
Taking the institutional developments and choices explained in Chapter II, Chapter III explores the pervasiveness of corruption and weak accountability, as well as the weakness of civil society resulting from the institutional shortcomings described in Chapter II.
