Article

Institutionalisation of Electoral Authoritarianism : A Study of The Syria’s Assad Regime

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Authoritarianism is a prevalent form of political system in the world where democratic political ideals are limited through advocating strict obedience to a single ruler or group arbitrarily. Electoral authoritarianism is a form that falls between democracy and authoritarianism. They practice authoritarianism behind the institutional façade of representative democracy. The formal structures, guidelines, and practices that make up a political system evolve through a process called institutionalisation. Institutionalisation serves authoritarian regimes' purpose of establishing stability and legitimacy. Establishing long-lasting laws and policies to support the authoritarian government can institutionalise authoritarianism. Electoral authoritarianism became a major form of political system in the post-Cold War era. The institutionalisation of electoral authoritarianism is visible in various countries, especially in West Asia. Syria is the best example, which has a long history of institutionalisation of authoritarian practices. This was most visible during the period of Hafez al Assad in 1970 and continued during his son Bashar Al Assad’s tenure. This institutionalisation is practised by manipulating the country’s constitution, institutions like the army, Judiciary, media, political parties and electoral laws.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, institutionalization has become one of the key concepts in comparative politics in general, and in the study of political development in particular. This elegant and almost geometrically tidy theory of political order best articulated by Huntington has been acclaimed as a major new school, one that will be able perhaps to narrow what La Palombara called the ‘widening chasm’ between ‘macrotheories and microapplications in comparative politics’. Indeed, Huntington in his book attempted to apply his theoretical tenets to the analysis of such important phenomena as military intervention in politics, corruption and violence, all this via the usage of a few major variables. In the notoriously slippery field of theorizing in comparative politics, this constituted a welcome influx of fresh air. No wonder, then, that Huntington's theory and concepts have been widely prevalent and frequently referred to—again a relative innovation in the easy-come-easy-go world of theories in the study of political development.
Article
Explanations of the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa have focused on absent prerequisites of democratization in the region, including weak civil society, state-dominated economies, poor socioeconomic performance, and nondemocratic culture. By contrast, the region's enduring authoritarianism can be attributed to the robustness of the coercive apparatus in many Middle Eastern and North African states and to this apparatus's exceptional will and capacity to crush democratic initiatives. Cross-regional comparison suggests factors both external and internal to the region that account for this exceptional strength.
Article
Since the end of the Cold War, political scientists have radically reexamined the role that elections play in authoritarian contexts. Some argue elections are congruent with authoritarianism and actually help to stabilize non-democratic forms of rule. Others challenge this claim by arguing that elections can function as a mechanism for democratization. We test whether elections have functioned as a mechanism of change or of neo-authoritarian stability in the postcommunist world. We generally find that elections neither promote democracy nor strengthen authoritarianism. However, we do find that in energy-rich states elections promote authoritarianism, though of a somewhat more benign sort. We also find that the mechanisms of electoral participation and competitiveness thought to promote democracy function differently in the postcommunist context and explore this in greater detail through a paired case study of electoral mobilization in Slovakia and Belarus.
Article
In recent years,new types of nondemocratic government have come to the fore,notably competitive authoritarianism.Such regimes, though not democratic,feature arenas of contestation in which opposition forces can challenge,and even oust,authoritarian incumbents.
Article
Journal of Democracy 13.1 (2002) 5-21 In the last quarter of the twentieth century, trends in seven different regions converged to change the political landscape of the world: 1) the fall of right-wing authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe in the mid-1970s; 2) the replacement of military dictatorships by elected civilian governments across Latin America from the late 1970s through the late 1980s; 3) the decline of authoritarian rule in parts of East and South Asia starting in the mid-1980s; 4) the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s; 5) the breakup of the Soviet Union and the establishment of 15 post-Soviet republics in 1991; 6) the decline of one-party regimes in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa in the first half of the 1990s; and 7) a weak but recognizable liberalizing trend in some Middle Eastern countries in the 1990s. The causes, shape, and pace of these different trends varied con-siderably. But they shared a dominant characteristic -- simultaneous movement in at least several countries in each region away from dic-tatorial rule toward more liberal and often more democratic governance. And though differing in many ways, these trends influenced and to some extent built on one another. As a result, they were considered by many observers, especially in the West, as component parts of a larger whole, a global democratic trend that thanks to Samuel Huntington has widely come to be known as the "third wave" of democracy. This striking tide of political change was seized upon with enthusiasm by the U.S. government and the broader U.S. foreign policy community. As early as the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz, and other high-level U.S. officials were referring regularly to "the worldwide democratic revolution." During the 1980s, an active array of governmental, quasi-governmental, and nongovernmental organizations devoted to promoting democracy abroad sprang into being. This new democracy-promotion community had a pressing need for an analytic framework to conceptualize and respond to the ongoing political events. Confronted with the initial parts of the third wave -- democ-ratization in Southern Europe, Latin America, and a few countries in Asia (especially the Philippines)--the U.S. democracy community rapid-ly embraced an analytic model of democratic transition. It was derived principally from their own interpretation of the patterns of democratic change taking place, but also to a lesser extent from the early works of the emergent academic field of "transitology," above all the seminal work of Guillermo O'Donnell and Philippe Schmitter. As the third wave spread to Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the 1990s, democracy promoters extended this model as a universal paradigm for understanding democ-ratization. It became ubiquitous in U.S. policy circles as a way of talking about, thinking about, and designing interventions in processes of political change around the world. And it stayed remarkably constant despite many variations in those patterns of political change and a stream of increasingly diverse scholarly views about the course and nature of democratic transitions. The transition paradigm has been somewhat useful during a time of momentous and often surprising political upheaval in the world. But it is increasingly clear that reality is no longer conforming to the model. Many countries that policy makers and aid practitioners persist in calling "transitional" are not in transition to democracy, and of the democratic transitions that are under way, more than a few are not following the model. Sticking with the paradigm beyond its useful life is retarding evolution in the field of democratic assistance and is leading policy makers astray in other ways. It is time to recognize that the transition paradigm has outlived its usefulness and to look for a better lens. Five core assumptions define the transition paradigm. The first, which is an umbrella for all the others, is that any country moving away from dictatorial rule can be considered a country in transition toward democracy. Especially in the first half of the 1990s, when political change accelerated in many regions, numerous policy makers and aid prac-titioners reflexively labeled any formerly...
Article
Arab political regimes are both unusually undemocratic and unusually stable. A series of nested statistical models are reported to parse competing explanations. The democratic deficit is comprehensible in terms of lack of modernization, British colonial history, neighborhood effects, reliance on taxes for government finance, and the Arab population share. Interpretation of the last variable is problematic: It could point to some antidemocratic aspect of Arab culture (though this appears not to be supported by survey evidence), or it could be a proxy for some unobservable such as investment in institutions of internal repression that may not be culturally determined and instead reflect elite preferences. Hypotheses that did not receive robust support include the presence of oil rents, the status of women, conflict with Israel or other neighbors, or Islam. The odds on liberalizing transitions occurring are low but rising. In this respect the distinction between the interpretation of the Arab ethnic share as an intrinsic cultural marker and as a proxy for some unobservable is important—if the former is correct, then one would expect the likelihood of regime change to rise only gradually over time, whereas if it is the latter, the probabilities may exhibit much greater temporal variability.
Authoritarian Persistence in West Asia and North Africa -The Peninsula Foundation
  • R Anand
Anand, R. (2022, April 3). Authoritarian Persistence in West Asia and North Africa -The Peninsula Foundation. https://www.thepeninsula.org.in/2022/04/03/authoritarian-persistence-inwest-asia-and-north-africa/
The Roots of Authoritarianism in the Middle East. Egyptian Institute for Studies
  • S M Bolme
Bolme, S. M. (2019, October 2). The Roots of Authoritarianism in the Middle East. Egyptian Institute for Studies. https://en.eipss-eg.org/the-roots-of-authoritarianism-in-the-middle-east/
Reviewed Work:Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America by Adam Przeworski
  • S P Chakravarthy
Chakravarthy, S. P. (1992). Reviewed Work:Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America by Adam Przeworski. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 11(2), 231. https://doi.org/10.2307/3338135
Syria: A country study
  • T Collelo
Collelo, T. (1988). Syria: A country study. Library of congress.
Election Law in Syria: The Architecture of Unfair Representation -Legal Agenda
  • N Georges
Georges, N. (2014, May 21). Election Law in Syria: The Architecture of Unfair Representation -Legal Agenda. Legal Agenda. https://english.legal-agenda.com/election-law-in-syria-thearchitecture-of-unfair-representation/
Semiauthoritarianism. In 21st century political science:A handbook
  • C Gobel
Gobel, C. (2010). Semiauthoritarianism. In 21st century political science:A handbook. Sage Publications Inc.
An authoritarian regime :Spain
  • J J Linz
Linz, J. J. (1964). An authoritarian regime :Spain. In Cleavages, Ideologies and party Systems: Contributions to Comparitive political sociology.
The Beginnings of Authoritarian Culture in the Arab World. Institute for Advanced Study; Institute for Advanced Study
  • K W Martin
Martin, K. W. (2017). The Beginnings of Authoritarian Culture in the Arab World. Institute for Advanced Study; Institute for Advanced Study. https://www.ias.edu/ideas/martin-authoritarianbeginnings Middle east -Politics. (n.d.). World101 from the Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://world101.cfr.org/rotw/middle-east/politics
  • Noureddine Jebnoun
  • M Kia
  • M Kirk
Noureddine Jebnoun, Kia, M., & Kirk, M. (2013). Modern Middle East Authoritarianism. Routledge. Q&A: Syria's New Property Law. (2018, May 29). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/29/qa-syrias-new-property-law
Syrian presidential elections: Spectacle and "electoral farce
  • H A Rawabdah
Rawabdah, H. A. (2021, May 5). Syrian presidential elections: Spectacle and "electoral farce." Syria Direct. https://syriadirect.org/syrian-presidential-elections-spectacle-and-electoral-farce/
A Brief Guide to Trademark Registration in Syria -Syrian Law Journal
  • Slj
SLJ. (n.d.). A Brief Guide to Trademark Registration in Syria -Syrian Law Journal. Retrieved October 23, 2023, from https://www.syria.law/index.php/brief-guide-trademark-registrationsyria/
The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa
  • King Stephen Juan
Stephen Juan King. (2009). The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa. Indiana University Press.