Between elites and opposition: legislatures’ strength in authoritarian regimes

Wiebrecht, Felix

doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1881487

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main empirical analysis will focus on the changes in legislative strength. The dependent variable for the main analysis is legislative strength, that is, "the accumulation (or absence) of different powers of legislatures vis-à-vis the executive" (Wiebrecht 2021(Wiebrecht , p. 1078. This concept has been operationalized in different ways, most prominently perhaps with the help of the Parliamentary Powers Index (PPI) (Fish 2006).…”

Section: Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, the PPI only allows for cross-sectional analyses and does not account for variation within regimes across time. Nevertheless, relying on V-Dem data, recent scholarship has been able to observe changes in legislative strength over time both, in authoritarian regimes as well as in democracies (e.g., Wilson and Woldense 2019; Coppedge et al 2021; Wiebrecht 2021).…”

Section: Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, the strength of legislatures, that is, parliaments’ powers vis-à-vis the executive, and therefore, their ability to effectively constrain dictators, differs remarkably (e.g., Fish 2006; Barkan 2009) with important policy implications, for instance, for regimes’ economic growth and investment (e.g., Wright 2008; Jensen et al 2014; Bonvecchi and Simison 2021). While the cross-regime differences in legislative strength are increasingly well understood (e.g., Wilson and Woldense 2019; Wiebrecht 2021), there is no reason to assume that legislatures’ strength remains constant once established. Yet, research has not advanced to explain the temporal dimension of authoritarian parliaments’ power cross-nationally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Corruption, Elite Contestation, and Parliaments: Why Do Legislatures Become Stronger in Authoritarian Regimes?

Wiebrecht

2023

Political Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of literature studies the personalization of power in authoritarian regimes. Yet, how institutions can become a credible constraint to dictatorial rule is less widely studied. I theorize that corruption is a key factor associated with stronger legislatures in authoritarian regimes. By engaging in corruption, authoritarian elites in ruling coalitions can build up networks of support and influence and ultimately, use their elevated position to impel more legislative powers vis-à-vis the executive. Examining panel data on the strength of legislatures in authoritarian regimes between 1946 and 2010, I show empirically that authoritarian parliaments are stronger when levels of corruption in a given regime are high. The link between corruption and legislative strength is especially strong in the Middle East and Africa, and primarily applies to party-based and military dictatorships. More competitive electoral and legislative processes, however, do not uniformly affect parliaments’ strength. These findings contribute to our understanding of institutional changes in autocracies and highlight the centrality of elite contestations in determining institutional trajectories.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corruption, Elite Contestation, and Parliaments: Why Do Legislatures Become Stronger in Authoritarian Regimes?

Wiebrecht

2023

Political Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the patterns observed do not amount to anything like a full-blown opposition mode in parliamentary democracies, Simison's findings clearly suggest that the government or opposition status of legislators matters, with pro-government and opposition legislators behaving differently, and focusing on different areas when introducing bills (Simison 2022). According to a study by Felix Wiebrecht (2021) which uses a large-N cross-sectional research design (1946–2000), the existence of an opposition is conducive to more de jure and de facto powers of authoritarian legislatures; however, importantly, the oppositions’ electoral strength is not linked to legislative strength. This echoes other research which suggests that small rather than big oppositions (among other factors) tend to favour parliamentary initiative and a legislative function of authoritarian parliaments.…”

Section: Party-based Opposition In Competitive Autocraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Oppositions in Democratic and Authoritarian Regimes: A State-of-the-Field(s) Review

Helms

2022

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political opposition has long been one of the most dramatically understudied elements of real-world politics in contemporary democratic and authoritarian regimes. The past decade or so has, however, witnessed an upsurge of new opposition research that begs for a major state-of-the-field review. Interestingly, recent scholarship has focused more on manifestations of opposition in authoritarian and hybrid than in democratic systems, which indicates a latent reconceptualization of political opposition (setting aside older distinctions between regime-loyal opposition and regime-challenging forms of resistance, dissidence and contestation). With a focus on party-based forms of opposition, which have been widely considered to mark the most effective form of opposition, this review article takes stock and highlights key issues for future research as well as some inherent obstacles to the emergence of a more integrated field of cross-regime opposition studies.

show abstract

“…Однако есть значимые препятствия к окончательному слиянию фракций в неразличимое целое. Во-первых, сами легислатуры за пределами отношения к режиму и за рамками принципиальных для него вопросов могут иметь собственное политическое значение (Wiebrecht, 2021;Williamson and Magaloni, 2020), потому что у элит могут быть разные предпочтения в отношении результатов политики . Государственная Дума регулярно отклоняется от модели «печатного станка», становясь «полем битвы элит» между заинтересованными сторонами (Noble and Schulmann, 2018, pp.…”

Section: теоретические основы исследованияunclassified

Party of Power and Sys temic Opp osi tion in the State Duma: diff erences in the structure of Russi a’s territorial im age

Sulimov¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Introduction: the legislative speeches at plenary sessions in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation provide rich material for analyzing deputy’s ideas about the world arrangement, including the issues of territorial and political nature. The latter are of interest because they are a kind of gateway to the “real world” in which real people and organizations live and operate in specific localities and territories. It can be assumed that with regard to the parties represented in the State Duma, their place in the partypolitical system is one of the factors of differences in Russia’s territorial image. The period under analysis covers the time between the State Duma’s 4th and 7th convocation (2003–2021), characterized by the formation of a fairly stable party-political system with the dominance of “United Russia” party and the representation of three parties of systemic opposition in the lower house of the Russian parliament. Objectives: to identify the differences between the factions of the State Duma in the volume and structure of references to geographical objects. Methods: “Natasha” library tools for analyzing natural language text based on deep learning methods, the OpenStreetMap automatic geocoding system, and content analysis. Results: compared to other factions, “United Russia” refers less to geographical entities in relation to the total speaking volume of its deputies. At the same time, the mention of Russia and everything “geographically” connected with it has a more abstract, that is, high-level character among “United Russia” members. This is manifested, at least, in two ways. Firstly, “United Russia” deputies talk less about geographic objects of the regional level and below. Secondly, in their general reference to specific regions, they are much more likely, compared to other factions’ deputies, to limit themselves by only naming the region. In other words, systemic opposition deputies talk more about towns and localities “within” regions. Conclusions: The territorial image of the country in the “United Russia” rhetoric significantly differs from the other factions’ image in the level of its abstraction. This may be explained by the role of “United Russia” as the party of power, i.e. the instrument of presidential dominance in parliament. Being politically dominant, it bears the main administrative burden in the Duma processes. This reduces its incentive for using the rhetoric that opens up the gateways to the “real world”.

show abstract

Between elites and opposition: legislatures’ strength in authoritarian regimes

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Corruption, Elite Contestation, and Parliaments: Why Do Legislatures Become Stronger in Authoritarian Regimes?

Corruption, Elite Contestation, and Parliaments: Why Do Legislatures Become Stronger in Authoritarian Regimes?

Political Oppositions in Democratic and Authoritarian Regimes: A State-of-the-Field(s) Review

Party of Power and Sys temic Opp osi tion in the State Duma: diff erences in the structure of Russi a’s territorial im age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About