Authoritarians on Offense

Repucci, Sarah; Slipowitz, Amy

doi:10.1353/jod.2022.0017

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Freedom House’s latest estimates, five of the seven top countries were Northern European (the two countries not in Northern Europe are New Zealand and Canada) and the United States was not even in the top 50. Relevant to the present considerations, the report accompanying these estimates highlights the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol and how the Religious-Right-endorsed incumbent sought to illegitimately overturn election results (Repucci and Slipowitz 2022). Illustrating how a cross-national approach might provide additional perspective on the relationship between religion and democracy, research by Catherine Bolzendahl, Rottem Sagi, and myself (2019) shows that while religion may be good for democratic citizenship within countries (more religiously engaged people are more engaged citizens within countries), across countries the opposite is true: less religious countries have more engaged citizens than more religious countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy

Schnabel

2023

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy

Schnabel

2023

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The United States serves as an example of this where the pandemic has been heavily politicized, with the seriousness of the pandemic initially downplayed, and misinformation spread fast and wide. 39 In countries like the United States, the pandemic challenged individuality, freedom, and rights, thereby arguably increasing the number of COVID-19-deaths, tests, and cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Country-Level Governance Indicators as Predictors of COVID-19 Morbidity, Mortality, and Vaccination Coverage: An Exploratory Global Analysis

Baghbanzadeh¹,

Smith

Pilz

et al. 2022

The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect all countries across the globe, this study seeks to investigate the relationship between nations’ governance, COVID-19 national data, and nation-level COVID-19 vaccination coverage. National-level governance indicators (corruption index, voice and accountability, political stability, and absence of violence/terrorism), officially reported COVID-19 national data (cases, death, and tests per one million population), and COVID-19 vaccination coverage was considered for this study to predict COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Results indicate a strong relationship between nations’ governance and officially reported COVID-19 data. Countries were grouped into three clusters using only the governance data: politically stable countries, average countries or “less corrupt countries,” and corrupt countries or “more corrupt countries.” The clusters were then tested for significant differences in reporting various aspects of the COVID-19 data. According to multinomial regression, countries in the cluster of politically stable nations reported significantly more deaths, tests per one million, total cases per one million, and higher vaccination coverage compared with nations both in the clusters of corrupt countries and average countries. The countries in the cluster of average nations reported more tests per one million and higher vaccination coverage than countries in the cluster of corrupt nations. Countries included in the corrupt cluster reported a lower death rate and morbidity, particularly compared with the politically stable nations cluster, a trend that can be attributed to poor governance and inaccurate COVID-19 data reporting. The epidemic evaluation indices of the COVID-19 cases demonstrate that the pandemic is still evolving on a global level.

show abstract

“…The COVID-19 governance shock doctrine belongs to a stage four, in which aid-recipient governments as well as aid-provider governments swing away from stage three's citizen-centric approach and the large-scale expansion and strengthening of civil societies and civic space it generated almost the whole world over. In its place they reinstate an autocratic mode of governance, in practical terms denoted by a much-reduced and circumscribed civic space, populated by organizations that extend the state's welfarist reach but are disqualified from serious engagement in governance and exist on the basis of tolerance rather than civic rights and freedoms (Alizada et al, 2021;Repucci & Slipowitz, 2022).…”

Section: Governance Shock Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%

The governance shock doctrine: Civic space in the pandemic

McGee

2023

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation: Emergencies heighten societies' need to be governed. Accordingly, the COVID-19 pandemic put systems of public governance under severe pressure across the globe. Civic freedoms were widely curtailed for public health reasons. Scarce resources needed to be allocated swiftly, with little opportunity for debate. Purpose: In settings characterized by authoritarianism, violent conflict, and restricted civic space, relations between governments, civil society, and citizens at best tend to be fragile and fraught even in "normal" times. What happens when these settings are rocked by a profound shock such as the onset of a global pandemic? Methods and approach: This article is based on research on civic space and civic action shortly after the onset of the pandemic in three such settings-Mozambique, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Civil society advocates in each country tracked and interpreted events in real time, debated their responses, supplemented their own knowledge through key informant interviews, and compared experiences across countries. Findings: I argue that the three governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic constitute a "governance shock doctrine," based on the premise that shocks bring responses from the powerful that advance certain agendas. This patterned phenomenon, visible across the three countries, consists of "securitization" of the public health emergency, suppression of dissent, extension and centralization of executive powers, curtailment of press freedoms, and tightened regulation of civic space, including online space. Civic activism navigated or combated these attacks in various ways. Policy implications: Measures adopted in emergency situations tend to persist, threatening to lock civil society into living with pandemic-era restrictions. Preventing this should be a global priority, and especially important where authoritarianism already looms. An energetic mobilization among national and international actors to reassert and protect civic space is needed if the erosion of civil liberties and normalization of autocratic governance wrought by the political-military apparatus in so many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic is not to become permanent, and if the inspired and progressive innovations in organic civic activism over the 2020-2021 crisis period are to survive and flourish.

show abstract

Authoritarians on Offense

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy

Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy

Country-Level Governance Indicators as Predictors of COVID-19 Morbidity, Mortality, and Vaccination Coverage: An Exploratory Global Analysis

The governance shock doctrine: Civic space in the pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About