No description available.

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.