Final Report Summary - AUTHORITARIANGLOBAL (Authoritarianism in a Global Age: Controlling Information and Communication, Association and People Movement)
The overarching research question of this project was: how is authoritarian rule affected by and responding to globalisation of (a) information and communication, (b) association, and (c) people movement? We find that authoritarian rule has responded quite successfully to the various forms of globalisation. As a consequence, we find that authoritarianism should be studied as a mode of governing people through a distinct set of practices, not as a structural regime type entrapped in its national territory. Authoritarian governance beyond borders constrains certain traditional ways of controlling populations (i.e. imprisonment or censorship) but enables functional equivalents as well as new modes of control. These extraterritorial authoritarian practices to some extend bend and shape socio-political space, successfully transcending the limits of territorial space, legal-jurisdictional space, and physical distance.
Our research on authoritarianism and ICT has taken us in various directions. In a PhD project, we found strong evidence for a sustained connection between internet penetration and street protests in authoritarian contexts. Information provision through the Internet helps form more critical political attitudes in the long-term, and most authoritarian regimes are to some extent unable, to some extent unwilling, to completely block such information flows. However, in collaborative research we also found that digital authoritarian practices are not stand-alone policies of individual authoritarian regimes. Instead, they take shape in public–private and interstate collaborations and are diffused and legitimized in multilateral settings.
Our research on authoritarianism and associationalism has been based on the development of an original dataset on NGO restrictions in 96 countries over a period of 25 years (1992-2016). We find that their diffusion is explained by governments learn to imitate the legislative behavior of other states. This finding holds true not only for authoritarian governments, but also for hybrid and even some democratic governments. We are witnessing a gradual shift in what is globally considered legitimate in terms of limiting freedom of association.
In order to understand how authoritarian has responded to people movement, i.e. temporary or permanent migration, we conducted research on dissidents, students and (descendants of) labour migrants who had moved abroad but were still subject to various forms of control from their home governments. Our main findings are that authoritarian regimes uses practices of inclusion and exclusion to control their populations abroad, treating them as subjects or outlaws (using repressive strategies); as patriots or traitors (using legitimation strategies) or as clients (using cooptation strategies).
An additional strand of research on authoritarianism and anti-terrorist policies found that anti-terrorist policies can boost the external and internal legitimacy of authoritarian regimes, and is also associated with what we termed ‘multilateral authoritarian practices’. In two cases studies, we find that multilateral collaborations help states shield themselves and each other from publicity and responsibility.
Our research on authoritarianism beyond the state comprised a PhD project on subnational authoritarianism and research by the PI on extraterritorial, multilateral, public-private and institutional practices. The PhD project introduces the concept of ‘boundary-blurring actors’, which can include journalists, activists, public prosecutors and former regime insiders, who are repressed by subnational authoritarian regimes because they can publicize compromising information, and thereby make the power positions of subnational elites more uncertain. Opacity and the incremental, interactive nature of the repression are hallmarks of these forms of repression.
The PI has developed a new theoretical approach to authoritarianism, moving from authoritarian regimes to ‘authoritarian practices’. The theory has been explained and illustrated in two published articles, and is currently being elaborated in a monograph by the PI.
Our findings are also summarized in a short animation video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tXjJobjfs(opens in new window).
Our research on authoritarianism and ICT has taken us in various directions. In a PhD project, we found strong evidence for a sustained connection between internet penetration and street protests in authoritarian contexts. Information provision through the Internet helps form more critical political attitudes in the long-term, and most authoritarian regimes are to some extent unable, to some extent unwilling, to completely block such information flows. However, in collaborative research we also found that digital authoritarian practices are not stand-alone policies of individual authoritarian regimes. Instead, they take shape in public–private and interstate collaborations and are diffused and legitimized in multilateral settings.
Our research on authoritarianism and associationalism has been based on the development of an original dataset on NGO restrictions in 96 countries over a period of 25 years (1992-2016). We find that their diffusion is explained by governments learn to imitate the legislative behavior of other states. This finding holds true not only for authoritarian governments, but also for hybrid and even some democratic governments. We are witnessing a gradual shift in what is globally considered legitimate in terms of limiting freedom of association.
In order to understand how authoritarian has responded to people movement, i.e. temporary or permanent migration, we conducted research on dissidents, students and (descendants of) labour migrants who had moved abroad but were still subject to various forms of control from their home governments. Our main findings are that authoritarian regimes uses practices of inclusion and exclusion to control their populations abroad, treating them as subjects or outlaws (using repressive strategies); as patriots or traitors (using legitimation strategies) or as clients (using cooptation strategies).
An additional strand of research on authoritarianism and anti-terrorist policies found that anti-terrorist policies can boost the external and internal legitimacy of authoritarian regimes, and is also associated with what we termed ‘multilateral authoritarian practices’. In two cases studies, we find that multilateral collaborations help states shield themselves and each other from publicity and responsibility.
Our research on authoritarianism beyond the state comprised a PhD project on subnational authoritarianism and research by the PI on extraterritorial, multilateral, public-private and institutional practices. The PhD project introduces the concept of ‘boundary-blurring actors’, which can include journalists, activists, public prosecutors and former regime insiders, who are repressed by subnational authoritarian regimes because they can publicize compromising information, and thereby make the power positions of subnational elites more uncertain. Opacity and the incremental, interactive nature of the repression are hallmarks of these forms of repression.
The PI has developed a new theoretical approach to authoritarianism, moving from authoritarian regimes to ‘authoritarian practices’. The theory has been explained and illustrated in two published articles, and is currently being elaborated in a monograph by the PI.
Our findings are also summarized in a short animation video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tXjJobjfs(opens in new window).