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.
- Authoritarian regimes
- Central Asia
- Political and administrative elites
- Public servants
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
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.
Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index. 2018. https://www.bti-project.org/en/home/. Accessed 18 Mar 2019.
Cepeliauskaite, G., and R. Petrauskiene. 2017. Factors determining trust in civil service in Lithuania. Public Policy and Administration 16 (3): 405–423.
de Graaf, G. 2010. The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 285–306.
Dukalskis, A. 2018. Authoritarian public sphere: Legitimation and autocratic power in North Korea, Burma and China. London: Routledge.
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.
Freedom House. 2019. Freedom in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/ABRIDGED_FH_FITW_2019_Report_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2019.
Freedom House, Freedom on the Net. 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-net. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
Freedom House, Nations in Transit. 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/nations-transit. Accessed 12 Mar 2019.
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.
Gawthrop, L. 1997. Democracy, bureaucracy, and hypocrisy redux: A search for sympathy and compassion. Public Administration Review 57 (3): 205–210.
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.
Internet World Statistics. 2018. https://www.internetworldstats.com. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
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.
Janenova, S., and Knox, C. 2019. Combatting corruption in Kazakhstan: A role for ethics commissioners?. Public Administration and Development
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.
Knox, C. 2019b. Development evaluation in authoritarian states. Development Policy Review
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-08-2018-0173
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.
O’Connor, K., Janenova, S., and Knox, C. 2019. Open government in authoritarian regimes. International Review of Public Policy 1 (1):65–82
O’Connor, K., Knox, C., and Janenova, S. Bureaucrats, Authoritarianism, and Role Conceptions. 2019. Review of Public Personnel Administration:0734371X1988800
Peters, G. 1988. Comparing public bureaucracies: Problems of theory and method. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
———. 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.
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.
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. 2018. https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018. Accessed 18 Mar 2019.
United Nations in Kazakhstan. 2018. http://kz.one.un.org/content/unct/kazakhstan/en/home.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Knox, C., Janenova, S. (2020). Depicting Public Servants in Authoritarian Regimes. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_55-1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science & International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences