"Preemnik" versus "Preemnichestvo": in the context of leadership succession variety

The concepts of ‘preemnik’ and ‘preemnichestvo’ came into existence from Russian political practice and its perception in mass consciousness. It is explained by that, since the middle of 2000s, public opinion has paid attention to the special phenomenon in the process of leadership succession. Strictly speaking, it is not a new phenomenon, but it didn’t seem to be meaningful earlier. Now it has gained in importance. Although it was designated by the ‘old’ word (literally ‘preemnik’ meant ‘the next leader’ — ’successor’), the word takes a new sense in the new context. In this narrow sense ‘preemnik’ is a special pattern of leadership succession. Intuitively, we are well aware what the special pattern is. Needless to say that it is not a special Russian phenomenon. We name ‘preemniks’ such leaders as Ilkham Aliev, Raul Kastro, Nikolas Maduro, ect., while Obama, Cameron, Yanukovich and many others are not considered as ‘preemniks’. Nevertheless, whereas intuitive conventionality is sufficient for public discourse, academic discourse needs a more definite conceptualization. Therefore in the article, we aim to defi ne such a criterion of leadership succession classification that allows us to distinct ‘preemniks’ among all cases of leadership succession. Next, descending ‘ladder of abstraction’, we intend to make the ‘taxonomic unfolding’ (G. Sartori) of the concept ‘preemnik’ and develop a classification of ‘preemniks’. We suggest that appropriate conceptualization of ‘preemnik’ can be achieved if to analyze a leadership succession as a decision. If so, the key criterion for the classification of leadership successions is an identification of who is a decisionmaker (an author of this decision). At the same time we need to take into account that a leadership succession is not a simple decision. It consists of at least two phases: a) leaving the office by the former leader; b) coming the office by the next leader. We argue that it is the second phase that has a decisive significance while the first phase can be assumed as a ‘zero decision’. Nevertheless, the second phase as such is also a complicated issue as it can include a set of sequential ‘acts’: nomination of the next leader, discussion over candidacies, ‘final decision’ that is made by voters in elections, officials in appointment, etc. In many cases ‘final decision’ is no more than ‘formalization’ of already taken decision. Therefore we need to distinguish the main ‘act’ in the second phase when the candidacy of the next leader is really defined – so called ‘basic’ or ‘primary decision’. Thus, the key criterion for the classification of a leadership succession is who makes ‘primary decision’. ‘Zero decision’ and ‘final decision’ will be additional criteria that allow highlighting sub-classes within classes of a leadership succession. All decision-makers can be divided into three groups: former leader, elite group, and the people. However, there is a good reason to suggest that although the people can participate in ‘zero decision’ and ‘final decision’, ‘primary decision’ is made by political elite. As our main reason is a conceptualization of ‘preemnik’, we can extract ‘former leader’ from ‘political elite’ as a special decision-maker. It allows us to conclude that ‘preemnik’ is a such class of a leadership succession when ‘primary decision’ is made by a former leader. In other words, it is a former who actually defi ne a candidacy of the next leader personally. All other cases are not corresponding with ‘preemnik’. Undoubtedly, they are extraordinarily diverse, but since they are not in the focus of our study, we don’t consider them in details and designate them simply as ‘non-preemnik’. Nevertheless, among them there is a group of cases that deserves a special attention. These are such cases when we are not able to defi ne who makes ‘primary decision’ personally. It is possible if ‘primary decision’ is a quite institutionalized process, which both a former leader and ruling group participate in. Mexican model dedaco is the most well-known example of such practice. Here it is impossible separate a former leader from ruling elite because they are a whole entity. Consequently, these cases are similar but not identical to ‘preemnik’. We call this special class of a leadership succession as ‘preemnichestvo’.  The last task of our study is a classification within the class of ‘preemnik’. Sub-classes are highlighted on the basis of who makes ‘zero decision’ and ‘final decision’. So we can separate as a sub-class the cases when a former leader is dead (there is no ’zero decision’) but nobody is able to challenge his ‘primary decision’ concerning ‘preemnik’. The other sub-class is a voluntary resignation of a former leader (he make ‘zero decision’). In both sub-classes ‘final decision’ is actually coincides with ‘primary decision’. Disagreement within ruling elite is the next sub-class. Here ‘final decision’ is made not only by a former leader, but also by ruling elite. The support of elite groups is essential in the struggle of ‘preemnik’ for a leadership. The degree of disagreement within ruling elite may be different. In the cases when ruling elite breaks up, it is possible that different elite groups turn for the help to the people in their struggle. It is also possible that opposition elite group has an influence. Then ‘preemnik’ is able to wins only through competitive elections. It means that we have one more sub-class when the people participate in ‘final decision’.