IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/gigawp/277.html

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Author

Listed:
  • von Soest, Christian
  • Grauvogel, Julia

Abstract

The analysis using the new Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) demonstrates that non-democratic rulers in post-Soviet countries use specific combinations of legitimating claims to stay in power. Most notably, rulers claim to be the guardians of citizens' socioeconomic well-being. Second, despite recurrent infringements on political and civil rights, they maintain that their power is rule-based and embodies the will of the people, as they have been given popular electoral mandates. Third, they couple these elements with inputbased legitimation strategies that focus on nationalist ideologies, the personal capabilities and charismatic aura of the rulers, and the regime's foundational myth. Overall, the reliance on these input-based strategies is lower in the western post-Soviet Eurasian countries and very pronounced among the authoritarian rulers of Central Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • von Soest, Christian & Grauvogel, Julia, 2015. "How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries," GIGA Working Papers 277, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:gigawp:277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/121908/1/833542494.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asel Murzakulova & John Schoeberlein, 2009. "The Invention of Legitimacy: Struggles in Kyrgyzstan to Craft an Effective Nation-State Ideology," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(7), pages 1229-1248.
    2. Grauvogel, Julia & von Soest, Christian, 2013. "Claims to Legitimacy Matter: Why Sanctions Fail to Instigate Democratization in Authoritarian Regimes," GIGA Working Papers 235, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    3. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    4. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    5. Pepinsky, Thomas, 2014. "The Institutional Turn in Comparative Authoritarianism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 631-653, July.
    6. Wintrobe,Ronald, 2000. "The Political Economy of Dictatorship," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521794497, August.
    7. Sally N. Cummings & Ole Nørgaard, 2004. "Conceptualising State Capacity: Comparing Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52, pages 685-708, December.
    8. Gasiorowski, Mark J., 1995. "Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 882-897, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. von Haldenwang, Christian, 2016. "Measuring legitimacy: new trends, old shortcomings?," IDOS Discussion Papers 18/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria J. Debre, 2022. "Clubs of autocrats: Regional organizations and authoritarian survival," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 485-511, July.
    2. Tannenberg, Marcus & Bernhard, Michael & Gerschewski, Johannes & Lührmann, Anna & von Soest, Christian, 2021. "Claiming the right to rule: regime legitimation strategies from 1900 to 2019," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(1), pages 77-94.
    3. Fenja Søndergaard Møller, 2019. "Blue blood or true blood: Why are levels of intrastate armed conflict so low in Middle Eastern monarchies?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(5), pages 517-544, September.
    4. Antonis Adam & Kostas Karanatsis, 2019. "Sovereign Defaults and Democracy," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 61(1), pages 36-62, March.
    5. Joel Guttman & Rafael Reuveny, 2014. "On revolt and endogenous economic policy in autocratic regimes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 27-52, April.
    6. Håvard Mokleiv Nygård, 2017. "The role of international organizations in regime transitions: How IGOs can tie a dictator’s hands," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 406-430, July.
    7. Delhey, Jan & Tobsch, Verena, 2000. "Understanding regime support in new democracies: does politics really matter more than economics?," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Social Structure and Social Reporting FS III 00-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Julia Ruiz Pozuelo & Amy Slipowitz & Guillermo Vuletin, 2016. "Democracy Does Not Cause Growth: The Importance of Endogeneity Arguments," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 95018, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    10. Ruiz Pozuelo, Julia & Slipowitz, Amy & Vuletin, Guillermo, 2016. "Democracy Does Not Cause Growth: The Importance of Endogeneity Arguments," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 7758, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Thomas Apolte, 2011. "Democracy and prosperity in two decades of transition," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 19(4), pages 693-722, October.
    12. Paul J. Burke & Andrew Leigh, 2010. "Do Output Contractions Trigger Democratic Change?," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 124-157, October.
    13. Beatriz Magaloni, 2010. "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 751-765, July.
    14. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    15. Berhanu Nega, 2011. "Short Changing the Value of Democracy for Economic Development in Africa," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 40(3), pages 313-334, October.
    16. Hayam Kim & Uk Heo, 2018. "International Organizations and Democracy Development: The Indirect Link," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(1), pages 423-438, March.
    17. Reutzel, Fabian, 2024. "The grass is always greener on the other side: (Unfair) inequality and support for democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    19. Pies Ingo & Wockenfuß Christof, 2008. "Armutsbekämpfung versus Demokratieförderung: Wie lässt sich der entwicklungspolitische Trade-Off überwinden? / Poverty reduction versus democracy promotion? How to overcome the trade-off in development cooperation," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 59(1), pages 405-440, January.
    20. Møller, Jørgen & Schmotz, Alexander & Skaaning, Svend-Erik, 2015. "Economic crisis and democratic breakdown in the interwar years: a reassessment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 301-318.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:gigawp:277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dueiide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.