Modern Authoritarianism and Corruption

Nisnevich, Yuliy A.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2728822

“…However in the modern world, besides countries ruled by democratic regimes, including those meeting only the minimal requirements for democracy, there are quite a few countries governed by non-democratic, authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes (Nisnevich, 2016). For these regimes, although, to a much lower extent and in softer forms of appearance, political ideology has retained its value as an instrument used "to support the social supremacy and the self-legitimization of the regime" (Soloviov, 2007: 351) and to rally and mobilize the masses in pursuit of its certain interests and goals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology

Nisnevich

¹

,

Ryabov

²

2016

Полис

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the ideologies of authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes. The analysis is carried out in three clusters: "rudimentary" authoritarian regimes, post-colonial dictatorships, neo-authoritarian regimes. The first cluster is subdivided into two subgroups: authoritarian monarchies and "communist regimes". The regimes in the third cluster are also subdivided into two subgroups: post-Soviet regimes and neo-authoritarian regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In an age of the decline of ideologies on a global scale, authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes, as before, need political ideologies to legitimise their power. However in the contemporary epoch which sets authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes new and much more complicated challenges, these regimes are forced to use more flexibility ideologies in order to adapt to the rapidly changing world. Ideologies of such regimes lose their former integrity and become "multi-layer", eclectic. "Non-ideological" elements such as corruption have become a part of the ideologies of neo-authoritarian regimes. But herewith priority of the state as the highest value remains "the bearing structure" of the political ideologies of all authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes. Despite the official protection of human rights and liberties by neo-authoritarian regimes, this occupies a secondary and subordinate place in the ideological hierarchy and political practice of these regimes.

show abstract

“…(2017), Modern authoritarianism and corruption, World Economy and International Relations, Vol. 61 No 1, p. 116 8. Koulinka, N. (2012), Belarus and Its Flight From Democracy: Political discourse and the people's choice in the…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Entwertung der Bürgerrechte und der politischen Rechte und Freiheiten unter den Bedingungen des Autoritarismus in Weißrussland und Russland

Хома

¹

,

Vdovychyn

²

2021

ІППСС

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is underlined in the article, that fixing of the wide complex of civil and political rights in the constitutions of the countries of former USSR in the 1990s, its complete realization, and proper protection did not become possible. The facts of media controllableness, infringements upon independence of the judiciary, pressure on the “third factor”, prosecution of human rights defenders, spreading of hate speech and even capital punishment practice certify that. The institute of the state as well as non-state subjects are noted to be the initiators of pressure on political and civil rights and freedoms. This is stated to separate post-Soviet countries from values of neo-liberal democracy, what is typical under conditions of neo-authoritarian political regimes, defective democracies, etc. In the article, the latest trends in the functioning of the Institute of Civil and Political Rights and Freedoms in Belarus and Russia are revealed. We state that despite the constitutional consolidation of a wide range of civil and political rights and freedoms in the countries of the former USSR in the 1990s, still their full implementation and proper protection are lacking. The author’s argumentation is based on the proven facts of media control, the infringement against judicial independence, pressure on civil society, persecution of human rights defenders, the rise of hate speech, which are inherent to Belarus and Russia. In the article, it is stated that the main movers of pressure on civil and political rights and freedoms in the analyzed countries are both state institutions and non-state actors (pseudo-civil society). The main problem in upholding the inviolability of constitutionally guaranteed civil and political rights is the lack of a sufficiently critical mass of citizens, who are ready for systemic change, and the weakness of national civil societies.

show abstract

Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology

Nisnevich

¹

,

Ryabov

²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the ideologies of authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes. The analysis is carried out in three clusters: "rudimentary" authoritarian regimes, post-colonial dictatorships, neo-authoritarian regimes. The first cluster is subdivided into two subgroups: authoritarian monarchies and "communist regimes". The regimes in the third cluster are also subdivided into two subgroups: post-Soviet regimes and neo-authoritarian regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In an age of the decline of ideologies on a global scale, authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes, as before, need political ideologies to legitimise their power. However in the contemporary epoch which sets authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes new and much more complicated challenges, these regimes are forced to use more flexibility ideologies in order to adapt to the rapidly changing world. Ideologies of such regimes lose their former integrity and become "multi-layer", eclectic. "Non-ideological" elements such as corruption have become a part of the ideologies of neo-authoritarian regimes. But herewith priority of the state as the highest value remains "the bearing structure" of the political ideologies of all authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes. Despite the official protection of human rights and liberties by neo-authoritarian regimes, this occupies a secondary and subordinate place in the ideological hierarchy and political practice of these regimes.

show abstract

Modern Authoritarianism and Corruption

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology

Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology

Entwertung der Bürgerrechte und der politischen Rechte und Freiheiten unter den Bedingungen des Autoritarismus in Weißrussland und Russland

Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About