Policing following political and social transitions: Russia, Brazil, and China compared

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Light ◽  
Mariana Mota Prado ◽  
Yuhua Wang

This is a comparative analysis of policing in three countries that have experienced a major political or social transition, Russia, Brazil, and China. We consider two related questions: (1) how has transition in each country affected the deployment of the police against regime opponents (which we term “repression”)? And (2) how has the transition affected other police misconduct that also victimizes citizens but is not directly ordered by the regime (“abuse”)? As expected, authoritarian regimes are more likely to perpetrate severe repression. However, the most repressive authoritarian regimes such as China may also contain oversight institutions that limit police abuse. We also assess the relative importance of both transitional outcomes and processes in post-transition policing evolution, arguing that the “abusiveness” of contemporary Brazilian police reflects the failure to create oversight mechanisms during the transition, and that the increasing “repressiveness” of Chinese police reflects a conscious effort by the Chinese Communist Party to reinforce the police in an era of economic liberalization. In contrast, Russian police are both significantly abusive and repressive, although less systematically “repressive” than Chinese police, and less “abusive” (or at least violent) than Brazilian police. Also, abuse and repression are less distinct in Russia than in the other cases. These results reflect the initial processes of decay and fragmentation, and subsequent partial recovery and recentralization, which Russian police have experienced since the Soviet collapse.

Author(s):  
Andrea Kendall-Taylor ◽  
Natasha Lindstaedt ◽  
Erica Frantz

Authoritarian constituents and their role in stability 102 Authoritarian survival strategies 107 Other sources of authoritarian durability 114 Conclusion 120 Key Questions 121 Further Reading 121 Many authoritarian regimes in power today have been around for decades. The People’s Action Party, for example, has controlled Singapore since its independence in 1965. The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for even longer, approaching nearly seven decades of rule. And the monarchy in Oman has governed for more than two hundred years. Of course, not all authoritarian regimes have this staying power. Cambodia’s Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge ruled for only four years. Similarly, the Turkish military’s reign in the 1980s lasted just three years. This variation in longevity raises the question: what makes some authoritarian regimes more durable than others?...


2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 495-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAHAR RUMELILI

In the course of his ethnographic study of the Ndembu tribes, the renowned anthropologist Victor Turner focused on the elaborate rituals that marked various phases of social transition, such as puberty and marriage. Also drawing on the work of Arnold van Gennep on rites of passage, Turner identified the entities going through social transitions as liminals, that ‘are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial’. According to Turner, the defining attribute of liminal positions is their ambiguity and indeterminacy because they ‘elude or slip through the network of classifications that normally locate states and positions in cultural space’.


Author(s):  
Hiroki Takeuchi ◽  
Saavni Desai

Abstract China's authoritarian regime under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remains resilient and responsive to domestic and international threats to its survival, especially considering the inherent instability of other authoritarian regimes. What strategies allow the CCP to stay in power? How do institutions help the CCP to sustain one-party rule, if at all? How does the regime maintain centralized rule over its vast population and territory? Finally, how does the regime respond to the people's demands and dissatisfactions? This review essay discusses how the growing literature of comparative authoritarianism helps (or does not help) us to answer these questions. It discusses three books – one on comparative authoritarianism and two on Chinese politics. In How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse, the authors (i.e., Barbara Geddes, Joseph Wright, and Erica Frantz) test various hypotheses exploring the issues regarding the central political processes that shape the policy choices of authoritarian regimes, such as seizing power, consolidation of elites, information gathering, and how dictatorships break down. Are their findings consistent or contradictory with observation of Chinese authoritarian politics? To answer this question, we draw empirical evidence from Bruce Dickson's The Dictator's Dilemma: The Chinese Communist Party's Strategy for Survival and Min Ye's The Belt Road and Beyond: State Mobilized Globalization in China, 1998–2018. These books suggest why China's authoritarian regime remains resilient.


2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Ransley ◽  
Jessica Anderson ◽  
Tim Prenzler

Much recent policing reform has been concerned with strengthening organisational and individual accountability through complaints, discipline systems and external oversight. Civil litigation against police has largely been ignored as an accountability measure. This research aimed to broaden the understanding of police litigation in Australia, and determine the implications for its use as an accountability mechanism. While the findings are not definitive, they generally conform with previous research outcomes that most cases initiated by civilians involve allegations of police abuse of power or process corruption. A new finding is that police sue their own organisations at about the same rate as they are sued by members of the public, although primarily for unfair dismissal. The results show a need for more detailed research, but highlight that civil litigation can form part of a regulatory web for identifying, controlling and preventing police misconduct.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Starck ◽  
Russell Luyt

This introduction to the special issue on “Political Masculinities and Social Transition” rethinks the notion of “crisis in masculinity” and points to its weaknesses, such as cyclical patterns and chronicity. Rather than viewing key moments in history as points of rupture, we understand social change as encompassing ongoing transitions marked by a “fluid nature” (Montecinos 2017, 2). In line with this, the contributions examine how political masculinities are implicated within a wide range of social transitions, such as nation building after war, the founding of a new political party in response to an economic crisis, an “authoritarian relapse” in a democracy, attempts at changing society through terrorism, rapid industrialization as well as peace building in conflict areas. Building on Starck and Sauer’s definition of “political masculinities” we suggest applying the concept to instances in which power is explicitly either being (re)produced or challenged. We distinguish between political masculinities that are more readily identified as such (e.g., professional politicians) and less readily identified political masculinities (e.g., citizens), emphasizing how these interact with each other. We ask whether there is a discernible trajectory in the characteristics of political masculinities brought about by social transition that can be confirmed across cultures. The contributors’ findings indicate that these political masculinities can contribute to different kinds of change that either maintain the status quo, are progressive, retrogressive, or a mixture of these. Revolutionary transitions, it seems, often promote the adherence to traditional forms of political masculinity, whereas more reformatory transition leaves discursive spaces for argument.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiuqing Tai

Media censorship is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, but much of the motivation and practices of autocratic media censorship still remain opaque to the public. Using a dataset of 1,403 secret censorship directives issued by the Chinese propaganda apparatus, I examine the censorship practices in contemporary China. My findings suggest that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is gradually adjusting its censorship practices from restricting unfavorable reports to a strategy of “conditional public opinion guidance.” Over the years, the propaganda apparatus has banned fewer reports but guided more of them. However, this softer approach of regulating news is not equally enforced on every report or by different censorship authorities. First, the party tends to ban news that directly threatens the legitimacy of the regime. In addition, due to the speed with which news and photographs can be posted online, the authorities that regulate news on the Internet are more likely to ban unfavorable reports, compared with authorities that regulate slower-moving traditional media. Lastly, local leaders seeking promotions have more incentive to hide negative news within their jurisdictions than their central-level counterparts, who use media to identify misconduct among their local subordinates. Taken together, these characteristics create a strong but fragmented system of media regulation in contemporary China.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Ling Li ◽  
Wenzhang Zhou

By focusing on the underlit corners of authoritarian governance in China, this article challenges the thesis that constitutions matter to authoritarian regimes because they provide solutions for problems of governance. We argue to the contrary: the constitution appeals to the Chinese Communist Party (the Party or the ccp) because it does not provide solutions to fundamental issues of governance. Instead, such issues are kept out of the constitution so that they can be addressed by the Party through other regulatory mechanisms outside of the constitutional realm. In support of our thesis, we provide a unique review of the most up-to-date authoritative research on three key constitutional issues: central-local relations, party-state relations and power relations in the Politburo. These three issues correspond to three distinctive fields in China studies that were treated only in isolation but here we consider them together under the single framework of authoritarian constitutional governance.


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A678-A679
Author(s):  
G ANDERSON ◽  
S WILKINS ◽  
T MURPHY ◽  
G CLEGHORN ◽  
D FRAZER

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document