On the basis of factors such as ideology, the degree of populism, political leadership and form of the government a complex comparative
analysis of the formation and development of the party system in Lithuania and Russia in the post-communist period was
carried out. Summing up, it should be noted that both Russian and Lithuanian party parliamentarism are being progressively consolidated.
At the same time they continue to suffer from many shortcomings owing to negative historical heritage, characterized by
authoritarian single-party system, cult of the leader, ideological populism and undeveloped civil society, and also because of the
prolonged transition period of young democracies. Speaking about the prospects of the development of the party systems of two
countries, it can be assumed that in the medium term the current situation should not change dramatically.
Igor Ivanov, Vadim Volovoj Comparative Analysis of the Party Systems Development in Russia and Lithuania // The Russian Academic Journal, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2014, pp. 0-0

The paper presents the author's assessment of the Russian opposition in the prism of «good and evil».
A. V. Fedorov TWO MORALS // The Russian Academic Journal, Vol. 23, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 0-0

After the sudden independence of Central Asian States (CAS) a question was raised about the political system which they would follow. Since these
states got independence without going through any political movement, debate and struggle so there could not emerge any consensus on political
models and structures. In the absence of any opposition, political power was transferred to former communist party leaders or secretaries in all
these states. These rulers run their respective states in old soviet dictator style and denied any space and democratic rights to their rivals and political opponents. To maintain their hold on the system these rulers also committed huge human right violations. Adoption of different types and versions of constitution failed to nurture multi party and fair political systems. Many opposition leaders of these states had to live in exile and state prisons. Elections, though conducted regularly after five or six years were not free and fair as reported by many independent observers.
According to many experts these elections were not more than  referendums technically designed to approve the authoritarian rules. Even after 23 years of independence the CASs are still being ruled by old soviet communist leaders and in same style without any real development of democratic systems. With this perspective, present paper is intended to analyse the political and democratic developments in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Further, emergence of different opposition parties and their failure, rulers of these states and their policies and programmes to maintain their grip on system have also been examined in this paper.
Zafar Javed Democracy in central asian states: perspective and development // The Russian Academic Journal, Vol. 26, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 0-0

The paper presents the author's assessment of the Russian opposition in the prism of «good and evil».

On the basis of factors such as ideology, the degree of populism, political leadership and form of the government a complex comparative analysis of the formation and development of the party system in Lithuania and Russia in the post-communist period was carried out. Summing up, it should be noted that both Russian and Lithuanian party parliamentarism are being progressively consolidated. At the same time they continue to suffer from many shortcomings owing to negative historical heritage, characterized by authoritarian single-party system, cult of the leader, ideological populism and undeveloped civil society, and also because of the prolonged transition period of young democracies. Speaking about the prospects of the development of the party systems of two countries, it can be assumed that in the medium term the current situation should not change dramatically.

Understanding a phenomenon requires, first, that we name it properly. In reference to Russia, the terms “extrasystemic opposition,” “antisystemic opposition,” and “nonsystemic opposition” all fall short as descriptions of what separates opposition parties from those in power, and a new vocabulary is needed.
Bol’shakov I. The Nonsystemic Opposition // Russian Politics and Law. 2012. Vol. 50, No. 3, May–June, pp. 82–92.