Transformation of bureaucracy-politics relationship in post-Soviet countries from nomenclature to neopatrimonialism: The case of Kyrgyzstan

One of the most important features that distinguishes ideal type bureaucracy from patrimonial bureaucracies is their relations with politics. These relations, determined within the constitutional framework, can operate in informal ways in some countries where traditional authorities are settled. Today, despite the existence of democratic rules and institutions in neopatrimonial countries, the ruling elites can influence bureaucracy within the scope of informal relations. In traditionalist Central Asian countries that emerged in the post-Soviet period, clans, local or regional leadership structures, and Soviet political elites control the neopatrimonial system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the existence of the nomenclature, which was influential on political and bureaucratic institutions, decreased and this group adapted to the new neopatrimonial system. In Kyrgyzstan, it is mentioned about the politics-bureaucracy relationship that takes shape around the presidents elected by the consensus of interest groups. These relationship networks, which differ from time to time, can also turn into compromises between local leadership structures and political elites. In such a system, personal relations come to the fore in the implementation of human resources functions such as hiring, appointment and dismissal in bureaucratic institutions. Therefore, it can be seen that the country's bureaucracy is inefficient, ineffective and unsuccessful. The main purpose of neopatrimonial relations is to obtain scarce resources in the country. For this reason, conflicts over the sharing of interests cause popular movements and power changes in the country. The absence of hydrocarbon resources in Kyrgyzstan, unlike other Central Asian countries, leads to the inability of the rulers to find sufficient financial resources to maintain their authority.