Advertisement

Depicting Public Servants in Authoritarian Regimes

  • Colin KnoxEmail author
  • Saltanat Janenova
Living reference work entry
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter examines how public servants in authoritarian regimes are depicted in the media. The site of enquiry is Central Asia. It begins by defining what a “public servant” means in this post-Soviet context and challenges the conventional boundaries between elected politicians and career public servants. This, in turn, casts doubt on the traditional political-administrative dichotomy as a way of considering their respective roles. Using content analysis of critical incidents involving public servants from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, the authors juxtapose reports from the state media, independent sources, and social media to compare how officials are portrayed. The chapter concludes that state media is used to deify prominent public servants. Social media, on the other hand, while offering an alternative voice for citizens to hold public servants to account, is used in malign ways to reinforce control and a mechanism to cynically court international public approbation that authoritarian regimes are becoming more open, transparent, and accountable.

Keywords

Authoritarian regimes Central Asia Political and administrative elites Public servants 

References

  1. Baidildayeva, D. 2018. Internet censorship in Kazakhstan: More pervasive than you may think, Open Democracy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/internet-censorship-in-kazakhstan/. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
  2. Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index. 2018. https://www.bti-project.org/en/home/. Accessed 18 Mar 2019.
  3. Cepeliauskaite, G., and R. Petrauskiene. 2017. Factors determining trust in civil service in Lithuania. Public Policy and Administration 16 (3): 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Graaf, G. 2010. The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dukalskis, A. 2018. Authoritarian public sphere: Legitimation and autocratic power in North Korea, Burma and China. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Dukenbaev, A., and V. Tanyrykov. 2001. Politico–administrative relations in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. In Politico-administrative relations: Who rules ? ed. T. Verheijen, 175–202. Bratislava: NISPAcee.Google Scholar
  7. Freedom House. 2019. Freedom in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/ABRIDGED_FH_FITW_2019_Report_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2019.
  8. Freedom House, Freedom on the Net. 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-net. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
  9. Freedom House, Nations in Transit. 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/nations-transit. Accessed 12 Mar 2019.
  10. Frolova, E., T. Ryabova, and O. Rogach. 2017. Bureaucrat image in Russia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 8.1 (23): 52–58.Google Scholar
  11. Gawthrop, L. 1997. Democracy, bureaucracy, and hypocrisy redux: A search for sympathy and compassion. Public Administration Review 57 (3): 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Trans. Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Internet World Statistics. 2018. https://www.internetworldstats.com. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
  14. Janenova, S., and Knox, C. 2017. Civil service reform in Kazakhstan: Trajectory to the 30 most developed countries? International Review of Administrative Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317722397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janenova, S., and Knox, C. 2019. Combatting corruption in Kazakhstan: A role for ethics commissioners?. Public Administration and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  16. Knox, C. 2019a. Public sector reforms in Central Asia. In Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance, ed. A. Farazmand. Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3656-1.Google Scholar
  17. Knox, C. 2019b. Development evaluation in authoritarian states. Development Policy ReviewGoogle Scholar
  18. Knox, C., and Janenova, S. 2019. The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2018-0173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nezhina, T., and T. Zaytseva. 2018. A public servant: To be or not to be. The determinants of employment decisions among the Russian MPA students. International Journal of Public Administration 41 (1): 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Connor, K., Janenova, S., and Knox, C. 2019. Open government in authoritarian regimes. International Review of Public Policy 1 (1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Connor, K., Knox, C., and Janenova, S. Bureaucrats, Authoritarianism, and Role Conceptions. 2019. Review of Public Personnel Administration:0734371X1988800Google Scholar
  22. Peters, G. 1988. Comparing public bureaucracies: Problems of theory and method. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1997. Bureaucrats and political appointees in European democracies: Who’s who and does it make any difference?’. In Modern systems of government: Exploring the role of bureaucrats and politicians, ed. A. Farazmand, 232–246. London: SAGE Publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rystina, I., A. Sadu, B. Bulegenova, M. Onuchko, and A. Kozhakhmetova. 2017. The state service of the Republic of Kazakhstan at a new stage of development. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 20 (3): 1–11.Google Scholar
  25. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. 2018. https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018. Accessed 18 Mar 2019.
  26. United Nations in Kazakhstan. 2018. http://kz.one.un.org/content/unct/kazakhstan/en/home.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Public PolicyNazarbayev UniversityNur-SultanKazakhstan
  2. 2.International Development Department, School of GovernmentUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Peter Matthews
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations