How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Soest, Christian von; Grauvogel, Julia

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2641749

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In post-communist Kyrgyzstan, elections and referendums were treated as a means of ‘procedure-based legitimacy’ (von Soest and Grauvogel 2015) and a strategy to consolidate presidential power (Murzakulova and Schoeberlein 2009). The clan-based rule of two presidents, Akaev Askar (1991–2005) and Bakiev Kurmanbek (2005–2010), led to public demonstrations and political coup-d’états in March 2005 and April 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating the Machine: E-voting Practices in Kyrgyzstan’s Local Elections

Sheranova¹

2020

European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses the e-voting experience of the local elections undertaken by Osh city Council in 2016. The process was introduced to ensure fair and democratic elections in Kyrgyzstan after continuous and repeated violent political uprising. The e-system, based on biometrics registration, biometric identification of voters and automated vote counting, was designed to help to avoid the most common election frauds: vote buying, carousel voting and group/family voting. The case study, mainly based on interviews, illustrates the adaptation and modernization of strategies to resist and cheat within the e-voting system. The analysis outlines three widely practised cheating strategies: procedural violations, such as avoiding cross-checking of manual and automated counting and allowing voting without biometrical identification; transformation of bribery into ‘vote auctioning’; and strengthening of kinship-based/regional support and tribal/regional identity under conditions of e-voting.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating the Machine: E-voting Practices in Kyrgyzstan’s Local Elections

Sheranova¹

2020

European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A growing body of recent scholarship shows that leaders and elites in non-democratic regimes use a broad array of justifications to stay in power and engender legitimacy among citizens (e.g. Holbig & Gilley, 2010;Mazepus, Veenendaal, McCarthy-Jones, & Trak Vásquez, 2016;Morgenbesser, 2016;Omelicheva, 2016;Sandby-Thomas, 2014;Von Soest & Grauvogel, 2015). Beyond performance, political elites justify their rule with ideology, history and national identity, charisma, religion, as well as democratic procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes political authorities legitimate? Students’ ideas about legitimacy in five European democracies and hybrid regimes

Mazepus

2017

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because the legitimacy of political authorities exists only in the eyes of citizens, this study investigates which criteria citizens use to decide that an authority is legitimate. By comparing ideas about what makes political authorities legitimate, this study in five European democracies and hybrid regimes illuminates the 'demand side of political legitimacy'. Using original student survey data, this article compares expectations of students from the Netherlands, France, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia about how political authorities should acquire the right to rule and how they ought to behave when in office. The analysis shows that the respondents across the five countries use similar criteria for granting legitimacy. Across the five countries, throughput and input were more important criteria for legitimacy than the output produced by authorities. Although several country differences were found, these differences did not align with regime type. The findings challenge the widespread view that what kind of authorities people consider legitimate is determined by their socialization in a particular political regime.

show abstract

“…92 (von Haldenwang 2016;Kailitz and Wurster 2017;Kneuer 2017, 186;Mazepus et al 2016;Wurster and Kailitz 2017). 93 (Dukalskis and Gerschewski 2017;Grauvogel and von Soest 2017;von Haldenwang 2016;von Soest and Grauvogel 2015;.…”

Section: Evidentiary Objection: "Reporting Bias"unclassified

“…154 (e.g. Dukalskis and Gerschewski 2017;Gerschewski 2013;Grauvogel and von Soest 2017;von Soest and Grauvogel 2015;. In Holbig's (2013, 62-65) account of ideology's functions based on Beetham's framework, she discerns three which comport with his triad of criteria for a legitimate power relationship (II.5.3.3): "the provision of normative justifications for the rightful source of political authority; the definition of the proper ends and standards of regime performance; and the mobilization of consent" (62-63, see Holbig 2006, 10-16;Holbig and Gilley 2010, 405).…”

Section: The Legitimating Power Of Ideologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Autocrats versus terrorists : what Conditions authoritarian counter-terrorism?

Korte¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation explores the breadth and variation of authoritarian counter-terrorism strategies and their legitimacy-related origins to challenge prevailing assumptions in Terrorism Studies. Research and analysis are conducted in the form of a Structured Focused Comparison of domestic counter-terrorism strategies in two electoral autocracies. The first case is Russia’s domestic engagement against a mix of ethno-separatist and Islamist terrorism emanating from its North Caucasus republics between 1999 and 2018. The second case is China’s engagement vis-à-vis a similar type of terrorism in its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region between 1990 and 2018. The comparison shows that, contrary to prevailing assumptions, the two strategies differ immensely from one another while containing significant if not predominant non-coercive elements. It further shows that the two strategies are closely related to the two states’ sources and resources of legitimacy, both in their original motivation to tackle the terrorist threat and in the design of counter-terrorism strategies. Drawing on David Beetham’s theory of The Legitimation of Power and on the Comparative Politics, Terrorism Studies and Civil War literatures, the dissertation explores the influence of five sources and (re)sources of legitimacy on the two counter-terrorism strategies: responsiveness, performance legitimacy, ideology, discursive power and co-optation. While governmental discursive power is discarded as a source of variation, findings are significant with respect to the influence of ideology and performance legitimacy. Reliance on ideology or related patterns for legitimation raise vulnerability to terrorism and constrain or facilitate the adoption of communicative and preventive measures that accommodate the grievances of potentially defective or even violently terrorist groups. Performance legitimacy is a key motivator in counter-terrorism and an influence on certain types of counter-terrorism policies. Responsiveness and co-optation are identified as potential sources of variation, based on idiosyncratic concurrence with policy choices.

show abstract

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Cited by 18 publications

References 79 publications

Cheating the Machine: E-voting Practices in Kyrgyzstan’s Local Elections

Cheating the Machine: E-voting Practices in Kyrgyzstan’s Local Elections

What makes political authorities legitimate? Students’ ideas about legitimacy in five European democracies and hybrid regimes

Autocrats versus terrorists : what Conditions authoritarian counter-terrorism?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About