Legitimationsstrategien von Autokratien

Kailitz, Steffen; Wurster, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s12286-017-0338-9

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…argued to be the key mechanisms behind authoritarian stability (Gerschewski 2013;Kailitz and Wurster 2017), and their impact on the longevity of the authoritarian rule is widely studied (e.g., Gandhi and Przeworski 2007;Escribà-Folch 2013;Kailitz and Stockemer 2016). By drawing from this comparative research on authoritarianism, we can better understand the cross-country patterns in regulation of religion.…”

Section: Conceptualization: Regulation Of Religion In Authoritarian Regimesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Further, several studies focus on authoritarian institutions of co-optation (Gandhi and Przeworski 2006; 2007; Magaloni 2008; Wright 2008; Boix and Svolik 2013), repression (Davenport 2007a; Møller and Skaaning 2013), and the relationship between co-optation and repression (Conrad 2011; Frantz and Kendall-Taylor 2014). Legitimacy, co-optation, and repression are now argued to be the key mechanisms behind authoritarian stability (Gerschewski 2013; Kailitz and Wurster 2017), and their impact on the longevity of the authoritarian rule is widely studied (e.g., Gandhi and Przeworski 2007; Escribà-Folch 2013; Kailitz and Stockemer 2016). By drawing from this comparative research on authoritarianism, we can better understand the cross-country patterns in regulation of religion.…”

Section: Conceptualization: Regulation Of Religion In Authoritarian Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Schleutker

2020

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Comparative research on authoritarianism has largely neglected religion. Yet, in order to understand the logic of authoritarian control over the civil society, it is necessary to study how the authoritarian regimes deal with religious groups. In this paper, lessons from the two rapidly expanding fields on regulation of religion and comparative authoritarianism are combined. In particular, a conceptualization of regulation of religion in the authoritarian context is proposed, according to which positive endorsement of religion can be understood as co-optation, whereas negative restrictions can be seen as repression. By employing data on positive endorsement and negative restrictions on religion from 2014 for ca. 70 countries, three different clusters of authoritarian countries regarding the regulation of religion are identified. Finally, it is argued that capacity and ambition of both the religious groups and the authoritarian regimes are the main determinants of regulation.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualization: Regulation Of Religion In Authoritarian Regimesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Conceptualization: Regulation Of Religion In Authoritarian Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Schleutker

2020

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature on legitimacy in authoritarian states suggests that nondemocratic regimes use a combination of these three legitimation sources to gain and maintain legitimacy (Cassani, 2017; Dukalskis & Gerschewski, 2017; Gerschewski, 2018; Kailitz & Wurster, 2017; Kneuer, 2013, 2017). In an application of Scharpf's model to authoritarian regimes, Kneuer (2017) argues that authoritarian regimes have a limited ability to draw on input legitimation due to the lack of democratic institutions and the absence of participation in the policymaking process of intermediary actors such as media, civil society and parties (Kneuer, 2017, p. 190).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: E‐participation and Legitimation Strategies In Nondemocratic Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do nondemocratic regimes promote e‐participation? The case of Moscow's active citizen online voting platform

Schlaufer

2020

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen online participation has become an increasingly important feature of policymaking in nondemocratic regimes. This article explores the question of why nondemocratic governments promote e‐participation tools. To address this question, this research examines the motives for the introduction of the Active Citizen e‐voting platform in Moscow through an in‐depth case study drawing on interviews and qualitative document analysis. The case study identifies a variety of objectives pursued by the Moscow city government with the promotion of e‐participation and relates them to three legitimation strategies, namely, input‐based legitimation, output‐based legitimation and discourse‐based legitimation. The results underscore how controlled e‐participation may combine different legitimation strategies without challenging the distribution of decision‐making power.

show abstract

“…Ideology “promises to explain all historical happenings, the total explanation of the past, the total knowledge of the present, and the reliable prediction of the future” (Arendt, 1951/1966 , p. 470). Recent reflections on the role of legitimacy in autocracies are taking up this perspective once again (for an overview see Kailitz and Wurster, 2017 ).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Normalization of Conservative Gender Politics in Chile and the Role of Civil Society

Graf

2020

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article discusses two cases of gender policy making during the Chilean transition to democracy, the policy on domestic violence and the divorce law. By comparing the official discourses on these two policy projects we show that authoritarian gender regimes can resist transition to democracy despite a vivid civil society. The case of Chile was selected, on one hand, because it exhibits particularly resistant authoritarian institutional enclaves. On the other hand, Chilean women's movements are often cited as a paragon of women's movements in transitions. Despite the central role of Chilean women's movements as a strong civil society force conservative gender roles and institutions inherited from the autocratic regime (e.g., conservative divorce and reproductive rights) have remained dominant. I argue that during the time of transition conservative political actors, but also parts of civil society, negotiated on these gender roles and institutions and thereby reached a status quo. Recent cases of sexual violence in response to student's uprisings show that this status quo is quite stable and prevents a real coming to terms with state violence.

show abstract

Legitimationsstrategien von Autokratien

Cited by 12 publications

References 58 publications

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Why do nondemocratic regimes promote e‐participation? The case of Moscow's active citizen online voting platform

The Normalization of Conservative Gender Politics in Chile and the Role of Civil Society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About