No description available.

No description available.

The process of going from relatively established democracies to not being classified as such in Hungary in Türkiye during the time of their leaders, Orban and Erdogan, in the executive branch of government is an interesting one. The research question “How have Erdogan and Orban´s parties been eroding democratic values with their policies since the leaders came into executive power in Türkiye and Hungary?” will work as the main guideline for the thesis. In addition, the purpose of researching the two states and leaders based on their governmental policies will give a clear understanding of how the thesis will be written.Using the strongmen theory as a theoretical framework will contribute to the understanding of how democracy has been eroded in the countries based on for example the strongman leadership style. The methodology being used will be two separate idea and ideology analyses and two separate case studies. That methodology will contribute to getting a deep and nuanced understanding of how the political leaders and their parties have eroded democracy.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of St Andrews, May 2007. / Restricted until 13th May 2008.

The aim of the research was to assess the psychometric properties of Altemeyer's (1981) Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA scale)- developed in response to identified methodological weaknesses in personality measures of authoritarianism to date - within a South African setting. A modified version of the 24-item attitudinal scale, together with a demographic questionnaire was administered to a white and black sample of South African university students. Subsequent psychometric analysis of the data indicated that the scale was a significantly less powerful measure of authoritarianism in a cross-cultural context, than originally hoped for. Not only did the analysis show an absence of psychometric equivalence but revealed substantial problems within the content of the scale itself. An ensuing discussion of these findings situated the debate within a broader theoretical context. It was argued that the RWA scale, and its underpinning conceptualization, although possibly comprising a methodological refinement over existing measures of authoritarianism, did not constitute grounds for a viable approach to research on authoritarianism in the South African context. It was concluded that a model of authoritarianism resting on the assumptions of positivistic psychology, inevitably failed to account for the social and political dynamics of a changing society. As a socially relevant enterprise, it was suggested that the debate on authoritarianism be extended beyond the confines of individualistic psychology and research priority directed instead to the crucial role of societal factors giving rise to the individual manifestation of the phenomenon.

The aim of this essay is to study the electoral process of Rwanda, and whether or not an authoritarian development can be found within the electoral process. This will be achieved through a case study of Rwanda, categorising the changes made in its electoral process since 1991 as either semi - authoritarian or authoritarian. Furthermore, the electoral process is divided into three phases: the pre - existing conditions, the procedure, and final ly the outcome. The theoretical framework consists of theories regarding both semi - authoritarianism and authoritarianism. The study finds that the pre - existing conditions and the outcome have transitioned from being defined as semi - authoritarian to be defi ned as authoritarian, while the procedure remains semi - authoritarian. This illustrates the discrepancy between the different phases of the electoral process, as opposed to them being synchronised. The final analysis concludes that Rwanda’s electoral proces s has become more authoritarian since 1991.

The stand of liberal democracy as the most desirable form of governance has long been left unquestioned in the West. The rise of geopolitical, and national, security issues force the population in these states to consider the trade off between security and democracy. Research on which demographic factors affect populations’ attitudes towards limiting their democratic rights for the sake of security is scarce. The few studies of the Swedish population's relationship to their democracy that do exist, do not problematize the found relationship between gender and the will to limit democracy in cases of crises.  This thesis tests what effects Swedes’ will to limit democracy for the sake of national security against two hypotheses. Right Wing Authoritarianism is used as the explanatory framework as to why women are more positive towards democracy limiting security measures than men. Utilising multiple regression analysis, the findings indicate that women to a larger extent than men are more positive towards democracy limiting security measures when controlling for other demographic factors and time. Therefore, this study concludes that gender-based structures in society affect womens’ relationship with the trade-off between security and democracy.

This PhD thesis compares Egypt and Syria’s authoritarian political systems. While the tendency in social science political research treats Egypt and Syria as similarly authoritarian, this research emphasizes differences between the two systems with special reference to institutions and co-optation. Rather than reducibly understanding Egypt and Syria as sharing similar histories, institutional arrangements, or ascribing to the oft-repeated convention that “Syria is Egypt but 10 years behind,” this thesis focuses on how events and individual histories shaped each states current institutional strengthens and weaknesses. Specifically, it explains the how varying institutional politicization or de-politicization affects each state’s capabilities for co-opting elite and non-elite individuals. Beginning with a theoretical framework that considers the limited utility of democratization and transition theoretical approaches, the work underscores the persistence and durability of authoritarianism. Chapter two details the politicized institutional divergence between Egypt and Syria that began in the 1970s. Chapter three and four examines how institutional politicization or de-politicization affects elite and non-elite individual co-optation in Egypt and Syria. Chapter five discusses the study’s general conclusions and theoretical implications. This thesis’s argument is that Egypt and Syria co-opt elites and non-elites differently because of the varying degrees of institutional politicization in each governance system. Rather than view one country as more politically developed than the other, this work argues that Syria’s political institutions are more politicized than their Egyptian counterparts. Syria’s political arena is, thus, described as politicized-patrimonialism. Syria’s politicized-patrimonial arena produces uneven co-optation of elites and non-elites as they are diffused through competing institutions. Conversely, the Egyptian political arena remains highly personalized as weak institutions and individuals are manipulated and molded according to the president’s ruling clique. This is referred to as personalized-patrimonialism. As a consequence, Egypt’s political establishment demonstrates more flexibility in ad hoc altering and adapting its arena depending on the emergence of crises. This study’s theoretical implications suggest that, contrary to modernization and democratization theory’s adage that institutions lead to a political development, politicized institutions within a patrimonial order actually hinder regime adaptation because consensus is harder to achieve and maintain. It is within this context that Egypt’s de-politicized institutional framework advantages its top political elite. In this reading of Egyptian and Syrian politics, Egypt’s personalized political arena is more adaptable than Syria’s. These conclusions do not indicate that political reform is a process underway in either state.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis seeks to advance the understanding of Zimbabwe’s current political situation and how it has regressed towards authoritarianism. The assumption when initially embarking on this research assignment was that Zimbabwe’s political failures over the past three and a half decades since its independence in 1980 could be traced back to its original Constitution – the Lancaster House Constitution of 1979. The research in this thesis is guided by a central question: Has Zimbabwe’s failure to successfully institutionalise democratic institutions, in particular through the 1979 Constitution, contributed to its regression to authoritarianism, despite its initial democratic transition? This question is substantiated by way of four sub-questions: • What processes lead from democratic transition to authoritarianism? • What are the institutional prerequisites for democratic development? • How was Zimbabwe’s Lancaster Constitution negotiated? • Did Zimbabwe’s institutional framework set it up for failure? In order to answer the research questions, a descriptive and exploratory study with emphasis on a case study was conducted by drawing from both secondary as well as primary sources of data. The primary data examined is a compilation of original documents belonging to the late Leo Baron, former Acting Chief Justice of Zimbabwe (1983) and lawyer to Joshua Nkomo. These documents include a personal record and interviews previously conducted in 1983 for the national archives of Zimbabwe between Baron and the state, an original ZAPU document titled Proposals for a settlement in Southern Rhodesia as well as the original Lancaster House Constitution of 1979. This thesis used democratic consolidation as a theoretical framework to assess the processes that lead from democratic transition to authoritarianism as well as the institutional prerequisites for democratic development. By exploring the field of democratic consolidation, the author settled upon two analytical frameworks for this research assignment. The first is that of Kapstein and Converse, who argue that in order for a democracy to be effective the power of the executive needs to be successfully constrained. They contend that if the executive faces sufficient constraints only then is it accountable to the electorate. Secondly, this thesis focuses largely on the institutional framework developed by Dahl, which highlights a set of criteria underlining the political institutions necessary for a country to transition into a successful democracy. The key findings are that, firstly, Zimbabwe’s Lancaster Constitution was not the product of an inclusive and participatory process; instead it has been discovered that the process was one that lacked public participation and thus lacked wider legitimacy. It can thus be argued that the Lancaster House Conference, normally regarded as the platform upon which Zimbabwe’s negotiated transition to majority rule took place, was in fact not a negotiation at all; instead it resembled more of a handover of power with forced implications and unrealistic expectations. And secondly, that the Lancaster Constitution of 1979 did not sufficiently provide for a democratic political institutional framework for democratic development in Zimbabwe. Instead it failed to highlight the importance of, and make provision for, several important independent organs usually responsible for the smooth transition towards democratisation and the eventual consolidation of democracy. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis beoog om ‘n dieper begrip van Zimbabwe se huidige politieke situasie aan te bied, asook die reprogressie na outoritarisme. Die aanvanklike aanname met die begin van hierdie studie was dat Zimbabwe se politieke mislukkings oor die afgelope drie en ‘n half dekades, sedert Zimbabwe se onafhanklikheid in 1980, terugspoor na die oorspronklike Grondwet naamlik – die Lancaster House Grondwet van 1979. Die navorsing in hierdie tesis is deur ‘n sentrale vraag gelei: Het Zimbabwe se mislukking om suksesvol demokratiese instellings te institusionaliseer, in besonder die Grondwet van 1979, bygedrae tot die regressie na outoritarisme, ten spyte van die aanvanklike demokratiese oorgang? Hierdie vraag word gestaaf deur vier sub-vrae: • Watter prosesse is gelei van demokratiese oorgang na outoritarisme? • Wat is die institusionele voorvereistes vir demokratiese ontwikkeling? • Hoe was Zimbabwe se Lancaster Grondwet beding? • Het Zimbabwe se institusionele raamwerk homself vir mislukking opgestel? Om in staat te wees om die bogenoemde navorsingsvrae te beantwoord, was ‘n beskrywende en verkennende studie met die klem op ‘n gevalle studie gedoen, deur data van beide sekondêre sowel as primêre bronne te trek. Die primere data wat geondersoek is, was ‘n samestelling van oorspronklike dokumente uit die besit van oorlede Leo Baron, voormalige Waarnemende Hoof Regter van Zimbabwe en prokureur van Joshua Nkomo. Hierdie dokumente sluit in ‘n persoonlike rekord asook onderhoude gevoer in 1983 vir die nationale argiewe van Zimbabwe tussen Baron en die staat. Hiermee saam volg ‘n oorspronklike ZAPU dokument getiteld Proposals for settlement in Southern Rhodesia asook die oorspronklike Lancaster House Konstitusie van 1979. Hierdie tesis gebruik demokratiese konsolidasie as ‘n teoretiese raamwerk waardeer die prosesse wat gelei het van demokratiese oorgang na outoritarisme, asook die institusionele voorvereistes vir demokratiese ontwikkeling, beoordeel word. Deur die veld van demokratiese konsolidasie te verken, het die outeur haar studie op twee analitiese raamwerke gevestig. Die eerste is die van Kapstein en Converse wat argumenteer dat vir ‘n demokrasie om effektief te wees, moet die mag van die uitvoerder beperk word. Hulle beweer dat slegs indien die uitvoerder voldoende beperkinge het, die kiesers dit as verantwoordelik erken. Tweedens fokus hierdie tesis grootliks op die institusionele raamwerk wat deur Dahl ontwikkel is. Dahl beklemtoon ‘n stel kriteria wat die nodige politieke grondwette vir ‘n land onderstreep om ‘n suksesvolle oorgang na demokrasie te verkry. Die sleutel bevindings is dit, Zimbabwe se Lancaster Grondwet was nie die produk van ‘n insluitende en deelnemende proses nie; in stede was dit bevind dat dit ‘n proses was van gebrekkige publieke deelname en dus het weier legitimiteit ontbreek. Daar kan dus geargumenteer word dat die Lancaster House Konferensie, wat normaalweg beskou is as die platform waarop Zimbabwe se oorgang tot meerderheid oorheers geonderhandel is, was in werklikheid nooit ‘n onderhandeling nie; instede blyk dit meer in gestalte na ‘n oorhandiging van mag met geforseerde implikasies en onrealistiese vereistes. Tweedens, dat die Lancaster Grondwet van 1979 nie daarin voldoen het om ‘n suksesvolle politieke institutionele raamwerk vir demokratiese ontwikkeling in Zimbabwe neer te lê nie. Eerder het dit daarin misluk om die belangrikheid van verskeie onafhanklike noodsaaklike organe uit te lig, of te voorsien, wat normaalweg verantwoordelik is vir ‘n gladde oorgang tot demokrasie en uit eindelik konsolidasie van demokrasie.