Advertisement

Defekte Autokratie

  • Alexander SchmotzEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Zeitgenössische autokratische Regime weichen in verschiedenen Richtungen vom ‚Ideal‘ der geschlossenen Autokratie ab. Der meistdiskutierte autokratische Defekt zeigt sich in der Wahlautokratie. Aber auch bei der Gewähr ziviler Freiheitsrechte, politischer Teilhabe und horizontaler Kontrolle geben sich einige Autokratien recht unautokratisch. In diesem Beitrag skizziere ich ausgehend vom Idealtypus der embedded autocracy und spiegelbildlich zur defekten Demokratie drei Typen defekter Autokratie: liberale, inklusive und kontrollierte Autokratien. Ich ziehe zwei neue und eine altbekannte Datenquelle heran, um autokratische Defekte zu messen, und stelle deren weltweite Entwicklung und gegenwärtige Verteilung dar. In einer quantitativen Ereignisanalyse (survival analysis) untersuche ich den Effekt autokratischer Defekte auf verschiedene Szenarien autokratischen Regime-Zusammenbruchs Es zeigt sich, dass unter Kontrolle auf Defekte in anderen Teilregimen Wahlen keinen konsistenten Einfluss auf das Risiko des Zusammenbruchs ausüben. Am bedrohlichsten für autokratische Regime sind liberale Defekte: Die Kontrolle und Einschränkung ziviler Freiheiten ist überlebenswichtig für autokratische Herrscher.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Albertus, Michael und Victor Menaldo. 2012. Dictators as Founding Fathers? The Role of Constitutions Under Autocracy. Economics & Politics 24 (3): 279-306.Google Scholar
  2. al-Sayyid-Marsot, Afaf Lutfi. 1984. Religion or Opposition? Urban Protest Movements in Egypt. International Journal of Middle East Studies 16 (04): 541-552.Google Scholar
  3. Ambrosio, Thomas. 2007. Insulating Russia From A Color Revolution: How the Kremlin Resists Regional Democratic Trends. Democratization 14 (2): 232-251.Google Scholar
  4. Ambrosio, Thomas. 2010. Constructing a Framework of Authoritarian Diffusion: Concepts, Dynamics, and Future Research. International Studies Perspectives 11 (4): 375-392.Google Scholar
  5. Ambrosio, Thomas. 2014. Democratic states and authoritarian firewalls: America as a black knight in the uprising in Bahrain. Contemporary Politics 20 (3): 331-346.Google Scholar
  6. Bader, Julia. 2015. China’s foreign relations and the survival of autocracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Baiocchi, Gianpaolo und Ernesto Ganuza. 2014. Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society 42 (1): 29-50.Google Scholar
  8. Benz, Arthur und Sabine Kropp. 2014. Föderalismus in Demokratien und Autokratien – Vereinbarkeiten, Spannungsfelder und Dynamiken. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8 (1): 1-27.Google Scholar
  9. Bogaards, Matthijs. 2009. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization 16 (2): 399-423.Google Scholar
  10. Bohmelt, Tobias. 2014. Political Opportunity Structures in Dictatorships? Explaining ENGO Existence in Autocratic Regimes. The Journal of Environment & Development 23 (4): 446-471.Google Scholar
  11. Boix, Carles und Susan Stokes. 2003. Endogenous Democratization. World Politics 53 (4): 517-549.Google Scholar
  12. Boix, Carles und Milan W. Svolik. 2013. The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government: Institutions, Commitment, and Power-Sharing in Dictatorships. The Journal of Politics 75 (2): 300-316.Google Scholar
  13. Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brownlee, Jason. 2009. Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transition. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 515-532.Google Scholar
  15. Brownlee, Jason. 2012. Democracy prevention. The politics of the U.S.-Egyptian alliance. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, David R. und Mitchell A. Orenstein. 2012. Post-Soviet Authoritarianism: The Influence of Russia in Its “Near Abroad”. Post-Soviet Affairs 28 (1): 1-44.Google Scholar
  17. Collier, David und Steven Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with Adjectives. Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics 49: 430-451.Google Scholar
  18. Croissant, Aurel. 2014. Ways of Constitution-Making in Southeast Asia: Actors, Interests, Dynamics. Contemporary Southeast Asia 36 (1): 23.Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Davenport, Christian. 2007. State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 1-23.Google Scholar
  21. Diamond, Larry. 2002. Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 21-35.Google Scholar
  22. Escribà-Folch, Abel. 2013. Repression, Political Threats, and Survival Under Autocracy. International Political Science Review 34: 543-560.Google Scholar
  23. Gandhi, Jennifer. 2008. Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gandhi, Jennifer und Ellen Lust-Okar. 2009. Elections under Authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 403-422.Google Scholar
  25. Gandhi, Jennifer und Adam Przeworski. 2007. Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. Comparative Political Studies 40 (11): 1279-1301.Google Scholar
  26. Gates, Scott, Håvard Hegre, Mark P. Jones und Håvard Strand. 2006. Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: Polity Duration, 1800-2000. American Journal of Political Science 50: 893-908.Google Scholar
  27. Geddes, Barbara. 1999. What Do We Know About Democratization after Twenty Years? Annual Review of Political Science 2: 115-144.Google Scholar
  28. Geddes, Barbara, Joseph Wright und Erica Frantz. 2014. Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set. Perspectives on Politics 12 (2): 313-331.Google Scholar
  29. Gerschewski, Johannes, Wolfgang Merkel, Alexander Schmotz, Christoph H. Stefes und Dag Tanneberg. 2012. Warum überleben Diktaturen? Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Sonderheft 47): 106-131.Google Scholar
  30. Gerschewski, Johannes und Alexander Schmotz. 2011. Contrary or Contradictory? Autocracies and Democracies between Dichotomy and Gradation. Paper prepared for the 6th ECPR General Conference. University of Iceland. Reykjavik.Google Scholar
  31. Giersdorf, Stephan und Aurel Croissant. 2011. Civil Society and Competitive Authoritarianism in Malaysia. Journal of Civil Society 7 (1): 1-21.Google Scholar
  32. Gilbert, Leah und Payam Mohseni. 2011. Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development 46 (3): 270-297.Google Scholar
  33. Golub, Jonathan und Alexander Schmotz. 2015. Event History Analysis in the Study of Regime Change. Paper presented at the International Dimensions of Authoritarian Rule Workshop. King‘s College London. London.Google Scholar
  34. Grambsch, Patricia M. und Terry M. Therneau. 1994. Proportional Hazards Tests and Diagnostics Based on Weighted Residuals. Biometrika 81 (3): 515-526.Google Scholar
  35. Hadenius, Axel und Jan Teorell. 2007. Pathways from Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18 (1): 143-156.Google Scholar
  36. He, Baogang. 2011. Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China. Three different logics at work. Public Administration and Development 31 (2): 122-133.Google Scholar
  37. Heydemann, Steven und Reinoud Leenders. 2011. Authoritarian Learning and Authoritarian Resilience: Regime Responses to the ‘Arab Awakening’. Globalizations 8 (5): 647-653.Google Scholar
  38. Holbig, Heike. 2013. Ideology after the end of ideology. China and the quest for autocratic legitimation. Democratization 20 (1): 61-81.Google Scholar
  39. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  40. Koesel, Karrie J. und Valerie J. Bunce. 2013. Diffusion-Proofing: Russian and Chinese Responses to Waves of Popular Mobilizations against Authoritarian Rulers. Perspectives on Politics 11 (03): 753-768.Google Scholar
  41. Levitsky, Steven und Lucan A. Way. 2002. Elections without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 51-65.Google Scholar
  42. Levitsky, Steven; Lucan A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lin, Li-Wen und Curtis J. Milhaupt. 2013. We Are the (National) Champions: Understanding the Mechanisms of State Capitalism in China. Stanford Law Review 65 (4): 697-759.Google Scholar
  44. Lin, Nan. 2011. Capitalism in China. A Centrally Managed Capitalism (CMC) and Its Future. Management and Organization Review 7 (1): 63-96.Google Scholar
  45. Lindberg, Staffan I. Hrsg. 2009. Democratization by Elections. A New Mode of Transition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Linz, Juan J. 1970. An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain. In Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology, hrsg. Erik Allardt und Stein Rokkan, 251-283. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Linz, Juan J. 1975. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. In Handbook on Political Science, Bd. 3, hrsg. Fred I. Greenstein und Belson W. Polsby, 175-411. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  48. Linz, Juan J. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  49. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review 53 (1): 69-105.Google Scholar
  50. Lorentzen, Peter L. 2013. Regularizing Rioting. Permitting Public Protest in an Authoritarian Regime. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (2): 127-158.Google Scholar
  51. Luciani, Giacomo. 1990. Allocation vs. Production States: A Theoretical Framework. In The Arab State, hrsg. Giacomo Luciani, 65-84. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lueders, Hans und Aurel Croissant. 2014. Wahlen, Strategien autokratischer Herrschaftssicherung und das Überleben autokratischer Regierungen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8 (3): 329-355.Google Scholar
  53. Lust-Okar, Ellen. 2006. Elections under Authoritarianism: Preliminary Lessons from Jordan. Democratization 13 (3): 456-471.Google Scholar
  54. Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy. Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Magaloni, Beatriz. 2008. Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule. Comparative Political Studies 41 (4-5): 715-741.Google Scholar
  56. Marshall, Monty G., Ted Gurr und Keith Jaggers. 2013. Polity IV Project. Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2012. Data Users’ Manual. Centre for Systemic Peace. Online unter www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf, Zugriff am 04.04.2014.
  57. Marshall, Monty G., Ted Robert Gurr und Keith Jaggers. 2014. Polity IV Project. Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2013. Dataset Users’ Manual. Centre for Systemic Peace. Online unter www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2013.pdf, Zugriff am 05.11.2015.
  58. Merkel, Wolfgang. 1999. Defekte Demokratien. In Demokratie in Ost und West, hrsg. Wolfgang Merkel und Andreas Busch, 361-382. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  59. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2004. Embedded and Defective Democracies. Democratization 11 (5): 33-58.Google Scholar
  60. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2010. Systemtransformation. Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2. Aufl.Google Scholar
  61. Merkel, Wolfgang und Aurel Croissant. 2000. Formale und informale Institutionen in defekten Demokratien. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 41 (1): 3-30.Google Scholar
  62. Merkel, Wolfgang; Johannes Gerschewski; Alexander Schmotz; Christoph H. Stefes; Dag Tanneberg. 2015. Critical Junctures and the Survival of Dictatorships. Unpublished Book Manuscript.Google Scholar
  63. Merkel, Wolfgang; Hans-Jürgen Puhle; Aurel Croissant; Claudia Eicher; Peter Thiery. 2003. Defekte Demokratie. Bd. 1 Theorie. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  64. Merkel, Wolfgang; Puhle, Hans-Jürgen; Croissant, Aurel; Thiery, Peter. 2006. Defekte Demokratie. Bd. 2 Regionalanalysen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  65. Møller, Jørgen und Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2013. Respect for Civil Liberties During the Third Wave of Democratization: Presenting a New Dataset. Social Indicators Research 117 (3): 1069-1087.Google Scholar
  66. Morse, Yonatan L. 2012. The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism. World Politics 64 (01): 161-198.Google Scholar
  67. O’Brien, Kevin J. 2008. Popular Protest in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. O’Donnell, Guillermo; Philippe Schmitter. 1986. Transitions From Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies. 4 Bände. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press (4).Google Scholar
  69. Ottaway, Marina. 2003. Democracy Challenged. The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  70. Perry, Elizabeth J. 2002. Challenging the mandate of Heaven. Social protest and state power in China. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  71. Posusney, Marsha Pripstein. 1993. Irrational Workers. The Moral Economy of Labor Protest in Egypt. World Politics 46 (1): 83-120.Google Scholar
  72. Przeworski, Adam und Ferdinand Limongi. 1997. Modernization: Theories and Facts. World Politics 49 (2): 155-183.Google Scholar
  73. Roessler, Philipp G. und Marc M. Howard. 2009. Post-Cold War Political Regimes. When Do Elections Matter? In Democratization by Elections. A New Mode of Transition, hrsg. Staffan I. Lindberg, 101-127. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Ross, Michael L. 2001. Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics 53 (3): 325-361.Google Scholar
  75. Schedler, Andreas. 2002. The Nested Game of Democratization by Elections. International Political Science Review 23 (1): 103-122.Google Scholar
  76. Schedler, Andreas. 2006. The Logic of Electoral Authoritarianism. In Electoral Authoritarianism. The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, hrsg. Andreas Schedler, 1-23. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  77. Schedler, Andreas. 2013. The Politics of Uncertainty. Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Schmotz, Alexander. 2015a. Hybride Regime. In Handbuch Transformationsforschung, hrsg. Raj Kollmorgen, Wolfgang Merkel und Hans-Jürgen Wagener, 561-567. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  79. Schmotz, Alexander. 2015b. Vulnerability and Compensation: Constructing an Index of Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. European Political Science 14 (4): 439-457.Google Scholar
  80. Schmotz, Alexander und Oisín Tansey. 2015. Regional Autocratic Linkage and Regime Survival. Prepared for the Second IDCAR Network Conference. Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  81. Skaaning, Svend-Erik. 2008. The Civil Liberty Dataset: Conceptualization and Measurement. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 2 (1): 99-121.Google Scholar
  82. Skaaning, Svend-Erik, John Gerring und Henrikas Bartusevičius. 2015. A Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 48 (12): 1491-1525.Google Scholar
  83. Svolik, Milan W. 2012. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Tansey, Oisín. 2016. The International Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Tansey, Oisín, Kevin Koehler und Alexander Schmotz. 2016. Ties to the Rest: Autocratic Linkage and Regime Survival. Comparative Political Studies, published online before print.Google Scholar
  86. Teets, Jessica C. 2014. Civil society under authoritarianism. The China model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Tolstrup, Jakob. 2013. Russia vs. the EU. The competition for influence in post-Soviet states. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  88. Ulfelder, Jay. 2007. Natural-Resource Wealth and the Survival of Autocracy. Comparative Political Studies 40 (8): 995-1018.Google Scholar
  89. Walder, Andrew G. 2003. Elite Opportunity in Transitional Economies. American Sociological Review 68 (6): 899.Google Scholar
  90. Wigell, Mikael. 2008. Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics. Democratization 15 (2): 230-250.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abt. Demokratie und DemokratisierungWissenschaftszentrum WZB zu BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations