Erosion or decay? Conceptualizing causes and mechanisms of democratic regression

Democratic regression has become a worrying phenomenon in the last years. Social science has provided a variety of explanations why democratic regimes have lost democratic regime quality. Against this backdrop, I take stock of the recent literature by putting forward two important analytical distinctions that we should make more explicit. First, I propose to classify our current explanations along the source where the cause for the malaise originated. By doing so, I introduce a distinction between erosion and decay type of arguments. While the former is a gradual process that is caused exogenously - like wind or water hitting a stone - the latter is caused endogenously - like the half-life in nuclear decay processes. Second, I draw a distinction between the endogenous or exogenous roots of the cause and the subsequent causal mechanism that connects the cause with the outcome. I outline the need for dissecting a causal mechanism into its constitutive components and highlight its underlying dimensions of temporality. Throughout the article, I use empirical case material as well as relevant secondary literature to illustrate these points

Legitimacy in Autocracies: Oxymoron or Essential Feature?

Legitimacy is a key concept in political science. It has deep normative roots in democratic theory and refers usually to righteous, just, fair, and therefore acceptable rule. However, non-democracies also try to create a following among their citizens. They also engage in justifying their rule through politicization, be it of religion, ethnicity, or ideologies ranging from left-wing communism to right-wing nationalism. Against this backdrop, I pose the question: does it make sense to use the concept of legitimacy for both types of regimes, democracies and autocracies alike? Or, do we overstretch the concept when transplanting it to the non-democratic realm? And, empirically, how can we assess to what degree a non-democracy is viewed as legitimate by its citizens? I aim therefore at defining what legitimacy and legitimation is in autocratic settings; drawing a semantic map of rival concepts like support, trust, and loyalty; and tackling concrete challenges in measuring this elusive concept

The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes

Why do some autocracies remain stable while others collapse? This article presents a theoretical framework that seeks to explain the longevity of autocracies by referring to three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation. These three causal factors are derived by distilling and synthesizing the main arguments of classic and more recent research efforts. Particular emphasis is paid to re-incorporate legitimation in the explanation of stable autocracies. The article conceptionalizes the three pillars and discusses methods of concrete measurement. It then moves on to explain the stabilization process. How do these pillars develop their stabilizing effect? It is argued that reinforcement processes take place both within and between the pillars. They take the form of exogenous reinforcement, self-reinforcement, and reciprocal reinforcement. To illustrate the inner logic of these processes, I draw on empirical examples. I also state what we would need to observe empirically and how we can approach the three pillars methodically. A theoretical framework of this nature has two advantages: it is able to take the complexity of autocratic regimes into account while remaining parsimonious enough to be applicable to all autocratic regimes, irrespective of their subtype; and it integrates a static view to explain stability, with the emphasis on the underlying stabilization mechanisms and facilitates within-case and cross-case comparisons

Crises and critical junctures in authoritarian regimes:Addressing uprisings’ temporalities and discontinuities

In this article, we aim at sharpening common understandings of the notion of political crisis to better explain the trajectories of authoritarian transformations during popular uprisings. We make three major claims. First, we propose a definition of crisis as brief moments of institutional fluidity and openness in which a process can take different directions. We delineate the crisis concept from the concept of critical junctures and outline how our approach contributes to the methodological debate on 'near misses'. Second, we indicate how the de-institutionalisation processes leading up to a crisis are to be analytically distinguished from within-crisis moments. We argue in favour of a discontinuity approach that takes into account the different temporalities of gradual lead-up processes and rapid within-crisis dynamics. Finally, we illustrate our theoretical and analytical reasoning with concrete cases from the authoritarian crises of the Arab uprisings, whilst suggesting that our argument can travel to other areas of research in which crisis narratives have gained prominence

Weltweites Ende oder Renaissance des Totalitarismus?

"Nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges wurde sehr schnell das weltweite Ende totalitärer politischer Systeme proklamiert. Lediglich das weitgehend isolierte Nordkorea wird zuweilen immer noch als letztes überlebendes totalitäres System bezeichnet, das jedoch in den letzten Jahren mit Erosionserscheinungen zu kämpfen hat. Allerdings könnten sich Ansätze aus der Totalitarismusforschung wieder als aktuell und nützlich erweisen, um radikalisierte und politisierte Religion zu analysieren. Das oft als letztes totalitäres Land angesehene Nordkorea kann aufgrund von ideologischen Neubestimmungen, vorsichtigen Wirtschaftsreformen und von Erosionserscheinungen des Sicherheitsapparates heute eher als 'posttotalitär' denn als 'totalitär' gekennzeichnet werden. Damit kann tatsächlich das Ende totalitärer politischer Systeme konstatiert werden. Die Gefahr des totalitären Denkens ist damit indes nicht gebannt. Die fundamentalistischen Religionsdeutungen zeigen strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten mit den totalitären Ideologien. Am radikalen Islamismus Sayyid Qutbs kann dies exemplarisch gezeigt werden. Eine solche Differenzierung zwischen totalitär verfassten politischen Systemen und dem totalitären Denken innerhalb radikalisierter Bewegungen ohne Staatscharakter erfordert aber auch eine ebenso differenzierte politische Herangehensweise." (Autorenreferat

Autocracies at critical junctures: a model for the study of dictatorial regimes

"How can authoritarianism in an age of democratization survive? What are the critical junctures when a dictatorship becomes less stable and potentially fails? In a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), three pillars of stability of autocratic rule are identified: legitimacy, co-optation, and repression. Referring to historical institutionalism's key concept of critical juncture, the hypothesis is based on the observation that these junctures become regime threatening when a serious crisis in one pillar occurs and the two other pillars can no longer sufficiently compensate this instability." (author's abstract)"Wie lässt sich die Stabilität diktatorischer Regime erklären, wie der Moment entscheidender Instabilität oder des Falls einer Diktatur? Das ist die Ausgangsfrage eines WZB-Projekts über critical junctures, der Phase, in der sich die Zukunft autokratischer Herrschaft entscheidet. Entwickelt wird hier ein Drei-Säulen-Modell als Grundlage für differenzierte Einzelanalysen. Dabei werden die tragenden Säulen jeder Diktatur (Legitimität, Kooptation, Repression) und die Wechselwirkungen analysiert." (Autorenreferat

How do inclusionary and exclusionary autocracies affect ordinary people?

We propose a distinction between inclusionary and exclusionary autocratic ruling strategies and develop novel theoretical propositions on the legacy that these strategies leave on citizens’ political attitudes once the autocratic regime broke down. Using data of 1.3 million survey respondents from 71 countries and hierarchical age–period–cohort models, we estimate between and within cohort differences in citizens’ democratic support. We find that inclusionary regimes—with wider redistribution of socioeconomic and political benefits—leave a stronger antidemocratic legacy than exclusionary regimes on the political attitudes of their citizens. Similarly, citizens who were part of the winning group in an autocracy are more critical with democracy compared with citizens who were part of discriminated groups. This article contributes to our understanding about how autocracies affect the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens