Abstrakt
Conventional wisdom holds that "formal institutions and organization matter". But why personalist regimes create parties and what role institutions play in the personalist regimes are still compelling research questions and are not fully understood by scholars.
Moreover, does the authoritarian institution in personalist regime change longstanding patterns of behaviour, informal politics of personalist regimes, or is a institution only rubber stamp? Although the study of authoritarian regimes has recently become one of the hottest subfield in comparative politics, so far authoritarian regimes have received remarkably little scholarly attention in comparation with democratization or inner workings of democracies and so authoratitarian regimes are seen as the black box, whose inner workings are hidden from view. Nevertheless, post-Soviet Central Asian regimes with institution-building "from scratch" could provide incredible opportunities to study institution.