The article attempts to identify the changes caused by military coups, one of the means of spreading neoliberal ideology, on the political economy of countries and discusses the place of the US hegemony in this context. The influence of armies on the political economy of countries is examined based on the examples of the Chilean military coup of 1973 and the Turkish military coup of 1980, and the place of the army element in the histories of these countries is discussed. Even if a hegemon power has enough economic, military and political power to intervene directly, it can use less costly and more legitimate tools for indirect intervention than a direct one. The policy of instrumentalizing local military forces and exporting neoliberalism to countries, which the US hegemony preferred to apply in the Cold War era and generally in the last quarter of the 20th century, is clearly seen in the examples of Chile and Turkey. Therefore, the main topic of this study is the use of armies as a tool by the neoliberal hegemon USA, and it argues that the military coups of Chile and Turkey were indirect foreign interventions, and that they were the products of the US hegemony as events that served to declare the victory of neoliberalism.

The article documents the evolution of governance measures in Africa during post-independence: economic freedom, electoral competitiveness, political rights and civil liberties, executive constraint, and polity2. It examines their implications for economic development, considers political instability (PI) in the form of coups d’état and civil wars on the premise that PI results from poor governance. In addition, the article sheds light on the links between the more recent measures of governance – the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) – and economic development outcomes among African countries. The article concludes by paying special attention to potential governance/institutional instruments that might reflect “good governance”, and highlights the implicit risks faced by African countries in their efforts to sustain the continent’s recent economic gains within the current political economy framework.

Slovakia, a small country in Central Europe, was among the most successful countries in combatting COVID-19 during the first phase of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. However, it appeared to be among the least successful states in later COVID-19 phases. The aim of the article is to highlight the specifics of the Slovak COVID-19 case. Why did Slovakia handle the COVID-19 outbreak effectively in the initial phase, and why did it fail later? The positive anti-epidemic results in the first phase were determined by effective government policies (realized during a time of government change) and catalyzed by the high level of compliance demonstrated by citizens. The failures Slovakia faced later are connected with the limited long-term politico-administrative capacity of the state, and politicization of the pandemic that resulted in social non-compliance. Short term success was possible with the mobilization of all actors, but long term success in this country seems to be “mission impossible”.

The article researches Russia’s concept of comprehensive sovereignty that is a cornerstone of the official state paradigm. Sovereignty is analyzed in its internal as well as external dimension, both synchronically and diachronically. The concept is interconnected with national security expanding into different realms. Sovereignty-based securitization tendencies are examined through methods of discursive analysis based upon constructivist assumptions. The present study puts emphasis on conceptual constructions and discursive practices significantly affecting individual perceptions, interpretation and Weltanschauung of political leadership as a whole, thereby shaping behavior, strategies and policies of individual actors concerned. The analysis reveals an affinity between concepts and discursive practices of the actors included in the research – Russia, the United States, China, and the European Union. It manifests itself in the concepts of comprehensive sovereignty, America First, dual circulation, and strategic autonomy respectively. These strategies are examined in relation to the transformation of the global order from US-led hegemonism towards polycentrism. The author draws attention to the interactions within the “quadrilateral” consisting of Russia, China, the EU and the US in order to demonstrate the emergence and dynamics of autonomization or regionalization, which is to be regarded as a dialectical moment in the globalization process towards glocalization and pragmatic polycentrism. The author concludes that the EU’s strategic autonomy is a positive feature, but requires the abandonment of Euro-Atlanticism, which thwarts restructuring the Eurasian macroregion in general, and settling Russia-Europe relations in particular.

BRICS is the most prominent organisation to have emerged in the non-Western sphere in the post-Cold War period. It has crystallised into a formal institution and has begun to play a crucial role in global governance. It has become a visible entity that is increasingly making a mark in global investments, sustainable development, trade negotiations, climate change talks and deliberations on terrorism. The paper focusses on one generic question and three specific questions: First, what purpose does BRICS serve in global governance? Second, has the New Development Bank emerged as a credible source of financing for developing economies? Third, what role has BRICS played in climate change negotiations? And finally, what steps does BRICS take to counter the menace of global terrorism?