Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show
Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution journal article American Journal of Political Science Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 2013) , pp. 703-716 (14 pages) Published By: Midwest Political Science Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496648 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Abstract When do elections in authoritarian regimes lead to democracy? Building from the distinction between competitive and hegemonic authoritarian regimes, I argue that presence of relatively weaker incumbents renders competitive authoritarian elections more prone to democratization, but only when domestic and international actors choose to actively pressure the regime. The effects of two forms of pressure—opposition electoral coalitions and international conditionality—are theorized. Propositions are tested using a comprehensive dataset of elections in authoritarian regimes from 1990 to 2007. Results support two core claims: that the effect of electoral pressure is conditional on the type of authoritarianism and that this greater vulnerability to pressure is the reason why competitive authoritarian elections are more likely to lead to democracy. In contrast, several alternative explanations—that differences across regime type are explained by alternation in power, better electoral conduct, or ongoing processes of liberalization—are not supported by the evidence. Journal Information The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), published four times each year, is one of the most widely-read political science journals in the United States. AJPS is a general journal of political science open to all members of the profession and to all areas of the discipline of political science. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of American Journal of Political Science. The electronic version of American Journal of Political Science is available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code;=ajps. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site. Publisher Information The Midwest Political Science Association, founded in 1939, is a national organization of more than 2,800 political science professors, researchers, students, and public administrators from throughout the United States and over 50 foreign countries. The association is dedicated to the advancement of scholarly communication in all areas of political science. Each year the association sponsors a three-day conference of political scientists in Chicago for the purpose of presenting and discussing the latest research in political science. More than 2,000 individuals participate in this conference, which features 300 panels and programs on politics. The MPSA is headquartered at Indiana University. For further information, contact William D. Morgan, Executive Director, email: . Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Abstract Much of the literature on regime change and democratization has failed to address some key concepts. Little effort has been made to examine systematically the distinction among state, regime, and government. Although conceptually distinct, only when democratization has reached a certain stage do they become empirically so. An important indicator of regime change in the direction of democratization is the extent to which these distinctions become clearer in practice. The delineation of the basic antithetical regime types—democracy and authoritarianism—has also been neglected. The article proposes certain necessary conditions for the functioning of democracy in modern mass polities with particular emphasis on the role of political opposition and parties in both democratic and nondemocratic regimes. Journal Information Comparative Politics is an international journal that publishes scholarly articles devoted to the comparative analysis of political institutions and behavior. It was founded in 1968 to further the development of comparative political theory and the application of comparative theoretical analysis to the empirical investigation of political issues. Comparative Politics communicates new ideas and research findings to social scientists, scholars, and students. It is indispensable to experts in research organizations, foundations, consulates, and embassies throughout the world. Comparative Politics is sponsored, edited, and published by the Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York. Opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in the journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or the City University of New York. Comparative Politics is published quarterly in January, April, July, and October. Publisher Information The Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York, located in the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York at 365 Fifth Avenue in New York, consists of a community of scholars dedicated to the tasks of acquiring, expanding, and transmitting reliable knowledge about political phenomena. Its essential function is to educate professional political scientists capable of independent research and qualified for careers in academic institutions, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector. Although the Ph.D. Program in Political Science features a diversity of approaches, all students are expected both to specialize and to develop an understanding of the discipline as a whole. Comparative Politics was founded by the Political Science Program of the City University of New York in 1968 to further its scholarly mission by promoting research in the field of comparative politics and is an integral part of its contribution to the discipline of political science. What is the difference between authoritarian and democratic regimes?In a democracy, a legislature is intended to represent the diversity of interests among citizens, whereas authoritarians use legislatures to signal their own restraint towards other elites as well as to monitor other elites who pose a challenge to the regime.
Can a regime be both authoritarian and democratic?Hybrid regimes combine autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.
Which of the following is an accurate comparison of sources of legitimacy in Iran and Mexico quizlet?Which of the following is an accurate comparison of sources of legitimacy in Iran and Mexico? In Iran, the regime primarily derives its legitimacy from religion, while in Mexico, the primary source of legitimacy is the constitution.
Which of the following statements correctly explains why the United Kingdom and Nigeria have different sources of authority?Which of the following statements correctly explains why the United Kingdom and Nigeria have different sources of authority? Federalism is a source of rules and authority in the United Kingdom, while Nigeria has transitioned from an authoritarian regime into a multiparty republic.
|
Which of the following is a correct comparison of authoritarian and democratic regimes?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 decemle Inc.
