cott Parsons ~pp. 291–293!. Cet apport surpasse pourtant en intérêt et en étendue lacaricature du postmodernisme qui clôt l’ouvrage ~chapitre 8!, moment où l’on s’étonneaussi d’apprendre que les théories poststructuralistes ~dont celle de Foucault et Bour-dieu! sont « alternatives ou encore très marginales en science politique » ~p. 302!.

Malgré la règle qui veut que tout choix exclut, on aurait pu s’attendre à ce quel’ouvrage fasse mention de l’apport de Nietzsche au tournant linguistique de la sci-ence politique contemporaine en conformité avec la pensée de Weber placée en têtedu chapitre 6 : « Le monde intellectuel dans lequel nous vivons a été en grandepartie formé par Marx et Nietzsche » ~p. 189!. Or, ce n’est pas le cas. Même sortpour Carl Schmitt, référence contemporaine incontournable, qui compte aussi parmiles disciples de Weber. J’ajouterai à la liste des menus défauts de cet ouvrage, l’absencenavrante pour un ouvrage didactique comme celui-ci d’un index nominal et d’un glos-saire des concepts et notions. Cette déficience est toutefois compensée par un usageopportun des encadrés qui présentent, ça et là, les auteurs et les œuvres importantesqui ponctuent le propos.

Ce ne serait pas faire justice au cœur de l’ouvrage que de ne pas revenir surl’actualisation de la sociologie compréhensive de Weber qui s’y élabore et qui révèlela finesse d’un paradigme dont on apprécie toute l’actualité devant le rejet relativisteou sceptique de la possibilité d’une science sociale. Au chapitre 7, en effet, la sociol-ogie de Weber devient une herméneutique qui, à l’encontre d’un positivisme dépassé,« propose plutôt une orientation compréhensive et contextualisée de la science del’homme » ~p. 236! qui allie l’observation rigoureuse à l’interprétation subjective.Ce ton réconciliateur entre pratiques souvent opposées participe d’une conception dumonde social qui devient théorie contemporaine du medium, intermédialité des ensem-bles sociaux : « Le monde social comme entité culturelle se définit comme lieud’interrelations constantes; il est le résultat de la “conversation” entre les individuset les structures sociales @...# . Il est un troisième lieu entre les structures et les indi-vidus, mais il les englobe aussi en même temps du fait qu’il les définit et se définitpar eux; il est en quelque sorte la “logique implicite” du langage social, ce qui rendpossibles les relations significatives entre les individus » ~p. 253!. Une telle approchedu social, qui surmonte les vieilles antinomies, devient aussi le modus operandi del’explicitation théorique elle-même à qui il est dorénavant permis d’admettre l’unitéde la forme et du fond, du contenu et du contenant : « L’objet d’étude se définit ainsien même temps qu’il s’explique; ces deux lieux demeurent inséparables » ~p. 254!.

En définitive, cette ouverture du cercle herméneutique dans la construction dupolitique à laquelle se consacrent légitimement Laurent McFalls et ses collaborateursa trait peut-être, piste laissée en plan, à une conception toute québécoise de la disci-pline dont le « polythéisme » épistémologique ressemble à une auberge espagnole,nécessaire, il est vrai, à une pratique libre et honnête.

JEAN-PIERRE COUTURE Université du Québec à Montréal

Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central AsiaKathleen CollinsNew York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 376DOI: 10.10170S0008423907071041

The long isolation of Central Asia finally ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.Five new independent states emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union, the veryfirst time in history that the peoples of Central Asia gained their own independentstates modelled on the modern state. This development caught the world, includingCentral Asians themselves, by surprise. It changed the geopolitics of the entire Eur-asia. In the ensuing years, the Central Asian republics have undergone simultaneous

802 Recensions / Reviews

multiple transformations: state building; political regime transformation; and transi-tion from Soviet communism. Thus the new states in Central Asia have providedscholars with new cases of multiple economic and political transitions to study andcompare. In recent years, there has been a significant proliferation of English-language publications on Central Asia. Kathleen Collin’s book, a comparative histor-ical study of political development in Central Asia, is a major contribution. While itsfocus is on Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, it often provides examples fromthe other two Central Asian republics, namely Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. It isthoroughly researched and rich in information and details. It also makes a significantcontribution to the political science literature on democratization, regime transitionand consolidation.

The main theoretical purpose of Collin’s study is to rehabilitate and develop theconcept of clan as an analytical and descriptive category to be used in studying polit-ical development within the context of the modern state. She argues that “clans arenot confined to the traditional, pre-modern era; in fact, in many ways, clans are verymodern organizations” ~43!. They adapted to and survived the Soviet communist sys-tem in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Collins anticipates possible criticisms for put-ting clan at the centre of her study partly because of the negative connotations andethno-centric usages of the term found in Western literature and media. She respondsto possible criticisms by providing a sociological meaning of the word as an analyt-ical and descriptive tool. The thesis of the book is that clans as political actors andclan patronage networks are key to explaining regime transition, regime type andconsolidation in Central Asia.

Collins develops her thesis mainly in opposition to or as a critique of the ThirdWave democratization literature. She contends that the democratization literature can-not explain regime transition in Central Asia because it focuses on formal politicsand ignores informal politics, such as clan politics, and because of its assumption ofa positive role of elite pacts in democratic transitions. Her argument is twofold. First,in both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union,the formation of clan elite pacts was crucial to the durability of the transitional regimesduring the initial period ~1991–1995!. In contrast, the absence of such clan pacts wasresponsible for the state collapse and the eruption of civil war in Tajikistan duringthe same period. Second, clan pacts do not necessarily lead to a more democraticregime. Whereas Kyrgyzstan’s transition was towards democratization, Uzbekistancreated an autocratic regime. Collins argues that, although in the short term, clanpacts can foster political stability, in the longer term, clan politics undermines con-solidation of the existing regime, especially when it is a democratizing regime aswas the case in Kyrgyzstan in the early 1990s. Thus, behind the façade of all-powerful autocratic rulers are the fragile states and regimes in Central Asia today.The recent sudden death of Turkmenistan’s President Saparmurat Niyazov has cre-ated an opportunity for Collins to test her argument that “a shock to the fragile sys-tem of power, perhaps in the form of the president’s death or an internal coup, mightwell spin these regimes into collapse” ~342!. Niyazov’s trustees appear to be in con-trol; there is no evidence for the country’s sliding into a regime collapse. The CentralAsian states may not be as fragile as Collins claims them to be.

Collins attaches too much theoretical significance to the initial divergent trajec-tories of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, democratization in the former and creation ofan autocratic regime in the latter. Her purpose is to show that agency in the form ofpolitical leadership matters. However, the fact that the divergent trajectories of thetwo republics soon converged on clan-based autocracy weakens her argument. Thebook’s emphasis on the initial divergent trajectories of the two cases detracts fromthe main thesis. But the major shortcoming of the book is its failure to integrateinternational factors into the theory and analysis of regime transition and durability

Recensions / Reviews 803

in Central Asia. This shortcoming stands out, especially given the facts that there hasbeen intense great-power rivalry for influence in the region and that the geo-strategicimportance of the republics has increased in the wake of 9011. Although the bookmentions some international factors, it studies the Central Asian republics mostly inisolation from the rest of the world as well as from each other.

Since clan politics undermines regime durability and is a barrier especially todemocratic consolidation, what is the solution for the predicament of the Central Asianstates? Collin’s answer is the creation of a market economy, which will arguably dis-solve clan networks. Her argument is that clans are rational responses to “an econ-omy of shortage.” The growth of a market economy will eliminate the economicconditions that foster clan networks. She lumps together pre-modern economies, Sovietsocialism, and “the semisocialist or imperfect markets of Central Asia today” as econ-omies of shortage ~336!. She never discusses the possibility that a market economycan lead to social and economic deprivations for large sections of society and thatthis situation in turn helps sustain clans as social support networks that can playimportant political roles. Thus, how and under what conditions a market economycan be the antidote to clan-based autocracy remain unexplained. However, overall,the strong contributions of this book far outweigh its shortcomings.

NILGUN ONDER University of Regina

Women and Politics in ChileSusan FranceschetBoulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005, pp. x, 203DOI: 10.10170S0008423907071016

The Pinochet dictatorship in Chile ~1973–1990! was marked by a high degree ofwomen’s activism focusing on human rights, economic survival and feminism. Manywomen expected that their active role during the dictatorship would lead to a newway of doing politics and greater inclusion of women in the political process oncedemocracy was restored. But despite the recent election of Michelle Bachelet as pres-ident of Chile, Chilean women continue to be vastly underrepresented in politicalparty leadership and elected office. In this clearly written and cogently argued book,Susan Franceschet addresses the important question of the marginalization of womenfrom Chilean politics under democracy.

Franceschet begins by examining women’s participation historically. She dis-cusses the gendered character of Chile’s democratization projects ~1932–1973 and1988–present! as well as the first and second waves of feminism ~including, inthe latter case, women’s contributions to the struggle for the return of democracy!.After providing this historical context, Franceschet moves on to examine women’spolitical participation in democratic Chile. She focuses on three arenas of politi-cal participation—electoral representation, gender policy and women’s movementdemands—and places all these issues in a broader context of struggles for citizen-ship rights. She bases her analysis on nearly 60 open-ended interviews.

In 2001, women represented only 12.5 per cent of elected officials in Chile.Franceschet relates the paucity of women in elected office to a number of factors,including gendered beliefs about the appropriate spheres for women’s and men’sparticipation—a highly masculine style of politics and women’s continued responsi-bility for child and family upkeep—and the absence of sustained and substantial pres-sure from women’s movements on political parties to increase women’s representation.In contrast to elected office, women have made greater inroads through the establish-ment of SERNAM ~Servicio Nacional de la Mujer, National Women’s Service!, thestate women’s policy machinery, which is charged with co-ordinating the work of

804 Recensions / Reviews