The International Relations of Small Neoauthoritarian States: Islamism, Warlordism, and the Framing of Stability

Abstract

The literature on democratization and authoritarian survival has rightfully studied the role external forces play in such processes. These external actors and structural constraints are said to be especially substantial when dealing with small and poor authoritarian states. Although this literature acknowledges that small states are not entirely powerless when confronting hegemonic external forces, little effort has been made to refine and specify the role they play and the actions they undertake to engage international democratization pressures. This paper addresses this lacuna by using the framing approach and the concept of “extraversion” to analyze the process by which weak African authoritarian states draw on and change the representations that Western powers hold about them. These representations provide a specific lens through which Western governments and experts look at political dynamics in developing countries, and eventually shape policies toward these countries. This paper analyzes how two small authoritarian African regimes, Guinea and Mauritania, have enacted a series of performances such as the arrests of alleged “Islamists,”“warlords,” and other transnational “subversive threats,” thereby framing their domestic and foreign policies in ways that can resonate with hegemonic international discourses, seeking to obtain either more support from Western states or to lower their democratization pressure (or both).

International Dimensions of Legitimacy: Reflections on Western Theories and the Chinese Experience

“…This appears to be questionable because authoritarian rule today is only in the rarest of cases based on genuine "authoritarian" legitimacy claims, both with respect to its institutional self-conception and in interaction with external players [24][25][26]. Rather, as will be argued here, there is a close and sometimes conflictual relationship between explicitly democratic and alternative, "nondemocratic," claims to legitimacy.…”

Authoritarian Consolidation

“…While these approaches convincingly explain the continued survival of the Middle Eastern oil monarchies, they are far less successful in accounting for the large number of enduring autocracies in Asia. Others highlight the role of regional and international factors, such as the influence of Western, pro-democratic countries (Levitsky and Way, 2006a, b) and the dynamics of global patron-client relations (Jourde, 2007;Yom and al-Momani, 2008). Finally, culturalist theories argue that some 'y many of the challenges democratic and authoritarian rulers face are actually quite similar'.…”

What’s This, Then? “Romanes Eunt Domus”?1

“…These patterns call into question the utility of the states‐under‐anarchy framework for understanding power‐political dynamics. They suggest the crucial importance of patron‐client relations, struggles over the legitimacy of external influence, the interplay of international inequality with domestic—as well as transnational—movements and coalitions, and other dynamics often found in imperial cases (e.g., Carney 1989; Ikenberry and Kupchan 1990; Jourde 2007).…”