Authoritarian Regime Stability in Uzbekistan under Patronal President Islam Karimov

This paper investigates the nature of Uzbekistan’s political system under President Islam Karimov through the lenses of patronal presidentialism to explain the factors conducive to the durability of the current regime. The paper argues that the longevity of the authoritarian regime in Uzbekistan can be best understood by a methodology that reconciles the propositions of institutional analysis of authoritarian rule with conventional methods of maintaining power such as coercion and patronage. Revealing the limitation of mainstream literature that overemphasizes neopatrimonialism and informality to understand domestic politics, the paper asserts that patronal president Islam Karimov assumed multiple instruments of power at the intersection of state and economy, which ensured regime stability in Uzbekistan until his death in 2016.

Response Relationship between the Upward or Downward Moving Distance of Main Stream Zone and Water and Sediment Conditions in Wandering Channels

The change of water and sediment conditions in wandering channels has a great impact on the stability of river regime. The quantitative relationship between them is still unclear. The qualitative influence of water and sediment conditions on the river regime stability was analyzed by a model test. The response relationship between the upward or downward moving distance of the main stream zone and water and sediment conditions was quantitatively studied by using the measured water and sediment data and large-section data over the years. The results showed that when the upstream water and sediment inflow conditions change, the stability of a wandering channel with relatively stable river regime under the control of finite boundary will still change. When the river channel is at 1000 m3/s under the action of long-term small water, or silting thickness is about 0.53 m, the main stream next to the project moves upwards about 1170 m along the way. In the case of a large flood, such as 8000 m3/s, or scouring depth is about 0.39 m, the main stream next to the project moves downwards about 870 m along the way. The study provides a certain scientific basis for river regime stability and river flood control early warning, and provides a certain method reference for quantitative study of river regime evolution of other rivers at home and abroad.

What Can Comparative Authoritarianism Tell Us About China Under Xi Jinping (and Vice Versa)?

This paper evaluates the progress and impact of the literature on comparative authoritarianism, showing not only how its development over the previous two decades can help us understand China’s authoritarian politics better, but also how the latter can move the former forward. We focus on two important topic areas in the literature: authoritarian power-sharing and autocratic politics of information (e.g., partial media freedom and government censorship). For the first topic, we shall review the literature on the authoritarian power-sharing between dictators and their allies and explicate how this conceptual innovation helps us understand the institutional foundation of China’s regime stability and phenomenal economic performance before Xi Jinping. The analysis then provides us a baseline for assessing China’s economic and political future under Xi Jinping given his clear departure from the pre-existing power-sharing framework. Finally, this paper also assesses the relevance of the literature on authoritarian politics of information to the Chinese context. In sum, we not only emphasize the conceptual contributions of the literature of comparative authoritarianism to the field of Chinese politics, but also identify lacunae in the current literature and avenues for future research that post-Xi political developments have made visible to us.

Democracy in authoritarian states? Political change and regime stability in Malaysia and Singapore

<p>In Political Science literature, Malaysia and Singapore have consistently been classified as semi-democracies; combining elements of democracy such as regularly-held elections with restrictions on civil liberties more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. Semi-democracy or competitive authoritarianism in both countries have been relatively stable with extended periods of strong economic performance. However, recent developments in the country’s political scene have cast some doubt on the resilience of such a system. In the case of Malaysia, the last two elections have shown a consistent loss in support for the ruling Barisan Nasional or National Front coalition which has been in power since independence in 1957. It also appears that restrictions on civil liberties have been lifted, albeit partially. The ‘complacency’ that existed among the middle class previously has largely given way while civil society is playing a much more prominent role in public discourse. Singapore has also experienced similar developments, though not to the extent to the extent of the ‘political tsunami’ in Malaysia. Nevertheless the ruling PAP had its lowest share of the popular vote in decades in the 2011 elections and Singaporean society is increasingly vocal about grievances regarding income inequality. Keeping in mind that there has been little structural change to the electoral system that still heavily favours the incumbent government and that key institutions of the state are still controlled by the ruling party, are both countries in a transition process to a more democratic system or will the ruling coalition retain power through these structural and institutional arrangements for the foreseeable future? In other words, will two of the world’s longest-running competitive authoritarian or semi-democratic states be resilient enough to withstand the pressures for change?</p>

Democracy in authoritarian states? Political change and regime stability in Malaysia and Singapore

<p>In Political Science literature, Malaysia and Singapore have consistently been classified as semi-democracies; combining elements of democracy such as regularly-held elections with restrictions on civil liberties more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. Semi-democracy or competitive authoritarianism in both countries have been relatively stable with extended periods of strong economic performance. However, recent developments in the country’s political scene have cast some doubt on the resilience of such a system. In the case of Malaysia, the last two elections have shown a consistent loss in support for the ruling Barisan Nasional or National Front coalition which has been in power since independence in 1957. It also appears that restrictions on civil liberties have been lifted, albeit partially. The ‘complacency’ that existed among the middle class previously has largely given way while civil society is playing a much more prominent role in public discourse. Singapore has also experienced similar developments, though not to the extent to the extent of the ‘political tsunami’ in Malaysia. Nevertheless the ruling PAP had its lowest share of the popular vote in decades in the 2011 elections and Singaporean society is increasingly vocal about grievances regarding income inequality. Keeping in mind that there has been little structural change to the electoral system that still heavily favours the incumbent government and that key institutions of the state are still controlled by the ruling party, are both countries in a transition process to a more democratic system or will the ruling coalition retain power through these structural and institutional arrangements for the foreseeable future? In other words, will two of the world’s longest-running competitive authoritarian or semi-democratic states be resilient enough to withstand the pressures for change?</p>

Russian repression grows despite regime stability

Significance 'Foreign agent', 'undesirable organisation' and 'extremist' designations have become the standard mechanisms for squeezing investigative journalists, independent media and other government critics. They are also an attack on Western values as they stigmatise contact with the world outside Russia as subservience to malign external influence. Impacts Repressive laws are used to justify Moscow's aversion to the West and liberal values. Legislation has multiplier effects since 'untainted' media can break the rules by quoting a designated organisation. The ongoing crackdown on domestic critics will be damaging for Russia's economic and investment attractiveness.

Amusing Ourselves to Loyalty? Entertainment, Propaganda, and Regime Resilience in China

Is it possible to form “soft autocracy” that manages citizens by taking away their sense of resistance? This paper suggests that the rise of entertainment media in autocracies enables the rulers to maintain their resilience through a soft approach, thereby avoiding costly heavy-handed measures. Such a soft approach can work because entertainment media, like “fictitious pleasure drugs,” undo audiences’ sophistication so that people are susceptible to autocratic propaganda. By analyzing a Chinese data set, via instrumented regressions, this paper shows that a one standard deviation increase in people’s interest in entertainment media is associated with an increase of almost 20% in both their satisfaction with the current regime and their anti-Western hostility. Furthermore, the findings show a positive relationship between people’s entertainment media interest and their acceptation of indoctrination by state media. In short, entertainment media contribute to China’s regime stability through “amusing ordinary citizens to loyalty.”

Regime Stability and the Persistence of Traditional Practices

I examine why the harmful tradition of female genital mutilation persists in certain countries while in others it has been eradicated. People are more willing to abandon their traditions if they are confident that the government is durable enough to set up long-term replacements for them. Using a country-ethnicity panel dataset spanning 23 countries from 1970 to 2013 and artificial partition of African ethnic groups by national borders, I show that a one-standard-deviation larger increase in political regime durability leads to a 0.1-standard-deviation larger decline in the share of newly-circumcised women, conditional on the presence of an anti-FGM government policy.

State-Formation, Statist Islam, and Regime Instability

Religion, and particularly the forces of political Islam and state secularism, have been central to discussions of regime stability in the Turkish case. Intense polarization, political instability, and military interventions have propelled Turkey into crisis about once a decade, preventing strong democratic or authoritarian consolidation. To explore why both democracy and authoritarianism have “failed to stick,” this chapter advocates for a historical assessment of the relationship between religion and regime, making two interlocking arguments. First, using evidence from the late Ottoman Empire and early Republican Turkey, it argues that processes of state formation shaped the subsequent trajectory of Islamist politics, which came to be dominated by statist or state-centric political Islamist currents. Second, and relatedly, although Turkey’s political Islamists have indeed used grass-roots strategies to inspire and mobilize the masses, legacies of state-building have contributed to another set of strategies at the elite level: State-centric Islamists in Turkey have wielded their moral authority to homogenize and nationalize society, as well as to build and reorient the state in their own image. They have steadily gained influence through a patient strategy of temporary bargains with the anti-democratic forces of Kemalist secularism against mutual enemies (leftists, minority groups, etc.). Finally, they have aspired for institutional capture rather than protracted power sharing—much like their Kemalist counterparts. In this context, many big political battles are fought within the critical institutional corridors of the Turkish state and are thereby destabilizing to it, whether in democratic or autocratic form.