.jpg)
printCivil Associations and Political Regime in Global Non-Democratic Practice:
Between Political Control and Social Efficiency
Bederson V.D.,
Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Researcher at the Center for Comparative History and Politics, Perm State University, vsbederson@gmail.com
elibrary_id: 679075 | ORCID: 0000-0002-8532-0032 | RESEARCHER_ID: P-6817-2017
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.02.04
For citation:
Bederson V.D. Civil Associations and Political Regime in Global Non-Democratic Practice: Between Political Control and Social Efficiency. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.02.04
The study is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project №18-311-00075 “Socially
Abstract
Regarding the balance between political control over civic associations and their social effectiveness (in using the functions of supporting the population and providing social services in undemocratic political regimes), this article aims to summarize and systematize the scientific literature and scientific discussion of this problem. The key theoretical and methodological directions and problems of civil society research in autocracies are considered. It is noted that empirical studies have accumulated considerable material analysing the specific mechanisms authoritarian regimes use to influence civil associations with a view to maintaining political control and ensuring social functions (cooptation, organizational and legal control, organizational and political control, quasi-non-governmental organizations), as well as into why civil associations are involved in supporting an authoritarian political order (access to limited resources, access to bureaucratic infrastructure, the possibility of consulting the authorities, the possibility of the manifestation of the rights of the target group). Studies on materials of Mozambique, Algeria, Ethiopia, Syria, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Jordan, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, etc, mainly carried out over the last 10 years, are analyzed. The problem that, in spite of considerable empirical material, non-democracies have not yet formulated a stable explanatory model or middle-level theory that would become conventional for these studies is discussed. Detailed consideration is given to how scientific literature answers the questions: why do authoritarian regimes need independent civil associations that can become triggers for democratization and/or political reforms; and for what reasons do independent associations participate in supporting authoritarian stability, despite the fact that the regime seeks to limiting independent civil activity? In conclusion, ideas are advanced on promising directions both in the theoretical-methodological and empirical development of studies of the dynamics of relations between authoritarian regimes and civil society institutions.
Keywords
civil society, civic associations, NGO, political regime, authoritarianism.
References
Abdel-Samad M. 2017. Legislative Advocacy Under Competitive Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Civil Society in Jordan. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 1035-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9592-0
Bing N.C. 2012. Civil Society with Chinese Characteristics? An Examination of China’s Urban Homeowners’ Committees and Movements. – Problems of Post-Communism. Vol. 59. No. 6. P. 50-63. https://doi.org/10.2753/ppc1075-8216590604
Bratton M. 1989. Beyond the State: Civil Society and Associational Life in Africa. – World Politics. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 407-430. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010506
Burch S. 2000. Transcending Revolutions: The Tsars, the Soviets and Deaf Culture. – Journal of Social History. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.2000.0130
Cheskin A., March L. 2015. State-Society Relations in Contemporary Russia: New Forms of Political and Social Contention. – East European Politics. Vol. 31. No. 3. Р. 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2015.1063487
Dupuy K.E., Ron J., Prakash A. 2015. Who Survived? Ethiopia’s Regulatory Crackdown on Foreign-Funded NGOs. – Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 419-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2014.903854
Fowler A. 1991. The Role of NGOs in Changing State‐Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa. – Development Policy Review. Vol. 9. No. 1. Р. 53-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.1991.tb00175.x
Fox J. 1996. How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico. – World Development. Vol. 24. No. 6. Р. 1089-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00025-3
Gandhi J., Przeworski A. 2006. Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion Under Dictatorships. – Economics & Politics. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2006.00160.x
Geddes B. 2004. Minimum-Winning Coalitions and Personalization in Authoritarian Regimes. – Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association. URL: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/cpworkshop/papers/geddes.pdf (accessed 10.01.2020).
Geddes B. 2005. Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes? – Revised Version of a Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. URL: http://www.daniellazar.com/wp-content/uploads/authoritarian-elections.doc (accessed 05.06.2017).
Gerschewski J. 2013. The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. – Democratization. Vol. 20. No. 1. Р. 13-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738860
Giersdorf S., Croissant A. 2011. Civil Society and Competitive Authoritarianism in Malaysia. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2011.553401
Gilbert L. 2016. Crowding Out Civil Society: State Management of Social Organisations in Putin’s Russia. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 68. No. 9. P. 1553-1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2016.1250250
He B., Thogersen S. 2010. Giving the People a Voice? Experiments with Consultative Authoritarian Institutions in China. – Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 19. No. 66. P. 675-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2010.485404
He B., Warren M.E. 2011. Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. – Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711000892
Heurlin C. 2010. Governing Civil Society: The Political Logic of NGO–State Relations Under Dictatorship. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 220-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9103-2
Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. 2013. Ed. by S. Heydemann, R. Leenders. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hsu C. 2010. Beyond Civil Society: An Organizational Perspective on State–NGO Relations in the People’s Republic of China. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 259-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2010.528949
Huang V.G. 2018. Floating Control: Examining Factors Affecting the Management of the Civil Society Sector in Authoritarian China. – Social Movement Studies. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1460264
Ilkhamov A. 2005. The Thorny Path of Civil Society in Uzbekistan. – Central Asian Survey. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930500310378
Kawakibi S. 2013. The Paradox of Government-Organized Civil Activism in Syria. – Civil society in Syria and Iran: Activism in Authoritarian Contexts. Ed. by P. Aarts, F. Cavatorta. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. P. 169-187.
Lagerkvist J. 2015. The Unknown Terrain of Social Protests in China: ‘Exit’, ‘Voice’, ‘Loyalty’, and ‘Shadow’. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2015.1052229
Levitsky S., Way L.A. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis D. 2013. Civil Society and the Authoritarian State: Cooperation, Contestation and Discourse. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013.818767
Lorch J., Bunk B. 2017. Using Civil Society as an Authoritarian Legitimation Strategy: Algeria and Mozambique in Comparative Perspective. – Democratization. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 987-1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1256285
Magaloni B. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richter J., Hatch W.F. 2013. Organizing Civil Society in Russia and China: A Comparative Approach. – International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 323-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9148-5
Roniger L. 1994. Civil Society, Patronage and Democracy. – International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 35. No. 3. Р. 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071529403500303
Schedler A. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Elections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Skokova Y., Pape U., Krasnopolskaya I. 2018. The Non-Profit Sector in Today’s Russia: Between Confrontation and Co-optation. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 70. No. 4. P. 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1447089
Spires A.J. 2011a. Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs. – American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 117. No. 1. P. 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1086/660741
Spires A.J. 2011b. Organizational Homophily in International Grantmaking: US-Based Foundations and Their Grantees in China. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 305-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2011.605005
Truex R. 2017. Consultative Authoritarianism and Its Limits. – Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 329-361. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139381703.006
Tysiachniouk M., Tulaeva S., Henry L.A. 2018. Civil Society Under the Law ‘On Foreign Agents’: NGO Strategies and Network Transformation. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 70. No. 4. P. 615-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1463512
Wells-Dang A. 2010. Political Space in Vietnam: a View from the ‘Rice-Roots’. – The Pacific Review. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740903398355
Wischermann J., Bunk B., Kollner P., Lorch J. 2018. Do Associations Support Authoritarian Rule? Evidence from Algeria, Mozambique, and Vietnam. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 95-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2018.1464707
Wu F. 2013. Environmental Activism in Provincial China. – Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 89-108. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315091693-5
Yu Z. 2016. The Effects of Resources, Political Opportunities and Organisational Ecology on the Growth Trajectories of AIDS NGOs in China. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 2252-2273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9686-3
Zhang X., Baum R. 2004. Civil Society and the Anatomy of a Rural NGO. – The China Journal. Vol. 52. P. 97-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/4127886
Ziegler C.E. 2010. Civil Society, Political Stability, and State Power in Central Asia: Cooperation and Contestation. – Democratization. Vol. 17. No. 5. P. 795-825. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2010.501172
Egorov G.V., Sonin K.I. 2008. Dictators and Viziers: The Economic Theory of Loyalty and Competence. – Social Sciences and Modernity. No. 2. P. 36-51. (In Russ.)
Haritonova O.G. 2012. Non-Democratic Political Regimes. – Political Science. No. 3. P. 9-30. (In Russ.)
Hoffmann S.-L. 2017. Sotsial’noe obshchenie i demokratiya. Assotsiatsii i grazhdanskoe obshchestvo v transnatsional’noi perspektive, 1750-1914 [Social Communication and Democracy. Association and Civil Society in a Transnational Perspective, 1750-1914]. Moscow: New Literary Observer. (In Russ.)
Last-Okar E. 2016. Vybory v avtoritarnykh rezhimakh: uroki Iordanii [Elections in Authoritarian Regimes: Lessons from Jordan]. – Patron-klientskie otnosheniya v istorii i sovremennosti: khrestomatiya [Patron-Client Relations in History and Modernity]. Moscow: ROSSPEN Press. P. 280-305. (In Russ.)
Olson M. 2010. Dictatorship, Democracy and Development. – Economic Policy. No. 1. P. 167-183. (In Russ.)
Semenov A.V., Bederson V.D. 2017. Organizational Reactions of Russian NGOs to Legislative Changes in 2012. – Journal of Economic Sociology. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 11-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2017-2-11-40
Shkel S.N. 2013. New Wave: Authoritarianism’s Multiformity in Reflection of Modern Political Science. – PolitBook. No. 4. P. 120-139. (In Russ.)
Tarasenko A., Kulmala M. 2015. Veteranskie organizatsii kak zainteresovannye gruppy: vozmozhnosti i ogranicheniya klientelizma dlya zashchity sotsial’nykh prav v regionakh Rossii [Veteran Organizations As Interested Groups: Opportunities and Limitations of Clientelism for the Protection of Social Rights in the Regions of Russia]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: https://eu.spb.ru/images/M_center/Tarasenko_Kulmala_working_paper_2015.pdf (accessed 10.01.2020).
Tarasenko A.V. 2010. Mezhdu obshchestvennym sprosom i finansovoi podderzhkoi antreprenerov: razvitie nekommercheskogo sektora v sravnitel’noi perspektive [Between Public Demand and Financial Support of Entrepreneurs: the Development of the Non-Profit Sector in a Comparative Perspective]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: https://eu.spb.ru/images/M_center/M_15_10.pdf (accessed 12.05.2018).
Tarasenko A.V. 2014. Kontsepty tret’ego sektora i grazhdanskogo obshchestva v kontekste teorii demokratii, upravleniya i ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Concepts of the Third Sector and Civil Society in the Context of Theories of Democracy, Governance and Economic Development]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: https://eu.spb.ru/images/centres/M-center/M_36_14.pdf (accessed 12.05.2018).
Zavadskaya M.A. 2014. Electoral Cycles into Competitive Authoritarian Regimes. – Review of Political Science. No. 3. P. 5-21. (In Russ.)
Content No. 2, 2020
See also:
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Avdonin V.S., Sergeyev S.A., Chernikova V.V., Sidenko O.A., Sokolov A.V., Evdokimov N.A., Tupaev A.V., Slatinov V.B., Zhukov I.K., Kozlova N.N., Rassadin S.V., Chugrov S.V.,
Regional political processes: how «subjective» are subjects of the RF. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5
Glukhova A.V.,
Demand for civil virtue. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5
Matsiyevsky Yu.V.,
Transformations of the political regime in Ukraine before and after the «Orange revolution»: institutional interpretation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No5
Kochetkov A.P.,
Netocratism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4
Lane D.,
Civil society in the countries of the European Union: ideology, institutions and advance of democracy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2
.jpg)
.jpg)