Abstract After the martial law was repealed, Taiwan has been embarked on the transformative process of political democratization and economic liberalization. As the first party turn-over in 2000 election changed radically the strategic environment of social welfare resource distribution, especially impacted the welfare for civil service and teachers, it is worthy of our reexploration furtherly on the status quo of Taiwan¡¦s social welfare resource distribution after democratization. Taking civil service and teachers for example, the author comprehensively worked up, compared and analyzed the allocational transition of social welfare resources respectively in the period of authoritarian rule and the transformative period of democratization, then presented policy and suggestion of social welfare resource distribution for civil service and teachers after democratization. The study surveyed the approaches of allocating social welfare for civil service and teachers by the research methods of analyzing the ideology of each party and the aspect of benefit transference by welfare policy, as well as expounding the supply side of government¡¦s welfare expenditure, then putting all the data above analyzed under the environmental veins of politics, economics and society so as to present an integrated skeleton of research. Moreover, the author chose 8 years before and after democratic transformation in Taiwan as research cases to engage in comparing and analyzing the social welfare resource distribution for civil service and teachers, i.e. the periods of DPP ruling (2000~2008) and KMT ruling (1994~1999). The research found that the social welfare resources laid particular stress on civil service and teachers in the period of authoritarian rule which possessed a savor of favor and grace. Secondly, there were full of variables and uncertainty in reformative policy of social welfare resource distribution for civil service and teachers during transformational period of democratization, but it would only turn the issue of welfare-alloctation to become an instrument among parties for exchanging political loyalty and consolidating their regime. Futhermore, while observing the situation before and after the transformative period of democratization, there was no significant difference in the expenditure items of welfares for civil service and teachers, but the allocation and beneficiary of social welfare tended to be generalized. The thesis suggested that the social welfare resource distribution should follow the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and build up the concepts of legalized welfare as swift as possible, i.e. such issue should be regulated, supervised and controlled by public opinions, then would the reasonable reform of welfares for civil service and teachers would be fulfilled gradually. Key words: Social Welfare Resource Distribution, Civil Service and teachers, Authoritarian Rule, Democratization

In this thesis, we approach the issue of democratic transition from the subjective perspective of the authoritarian leader. By identifying successful cases of democratic transition in the last two decades, we enter a detailed analysis on the authoritarian regimes' incentive towards stepping down from leadership and pushing for democratic reform domestically.

This thesis addresses how government in Rwanda plays out in practice and how it affects lived experiences of state power and citizenship. Two decades after the genocide, Rwanda has come to be associated both with security, development, and stability, on the one hand, and with state repression and coercion, on the other. In 2007, a nationwide programme was launched to teach all Rwandans about the politically dominant vision of the model Rwandan citizen – an ideal that is today pursued through remote trainings camps, local village trainings, and everyday forms of government. The thesis is based on ten months of anthropological research in Rwanda, oriented around three ethnographic spaces: the life and workings of the Itorero training sites, the voices of two dozen Rwandans living in Kigali, and the daily government of a local neighbourhood in Kigali. The findings highlight how certain government practices in Rwanda engender in people experiences of being exposed to the state’s power and violent potential. As such, they represent an authoritarian mode of rule, reproduced through the way experiences of exposure guide everyday actions and behaviour vis-à-vis the state. The thesis starts from the Foucauldian assumption that all relations of power depend on the acceptance and agency of both those holding power and those who relate to themselves as their subjects. In Rwanda, the terms of acceptance are partly grounded in local social realities. Personal memories of mass violence, for example, justify for many the state’s tight social control. Such memories are also actively nurtured by the government itself, by associating the loosening of state control with the risk of renewed violence. Furthermore, in light of Rwanda’s attraction of foreign aid, authoritarian rule needs to be understood in relation to international terms of acceptance, which are embedded in liberal understandings of good, or at least good enough, governance.

The aim of this essay is to investigate what sort of political regimes that have been taking form in Russia and Turkey during the 21st century. Hence, it studies the development that has been taking place in both countries during the last ten years. This essay is doing so by using a comparative approach. The theoretical frame of the essay is inspired by Silander’s (2012) dimensions for a democratic regime. The dimensions are leadership, political parties and civil society. Furthermore, it dives into deeper studies about the political system of each country.         The study demonstrates that neither Russia nor Turkey are able to meet the standards of a democracy as of today. Furthermore, it shows that Russia falls within the frame of an authoritarian regime. Turkey is listed as ”partly free” according to this study, hence it is a hybrid regime with limitations.

Putin’s authoritarian rule reaches all areas of Russian society, this can be attributed to the soft powers that the regime uses to further establish their power. The basis of this research is a theory from the book Authoritarianism goes global, where the authors describes the importance of soft powers in an authoritarian regime. The soft powers analysed include election monitoring, disinformation, cyberspace security and civil society repression. The aim is to examine which soft powers play a part in the consolidation of the Russian regime, and the strategies used to further legitimise their political agenda. The three questions answered in this research is how did Putin’s first eight years in power affect the use of soft powers in Russia today? What soft powers have led to the consolidation of an authoritarian regime in Russia? And how does Putin use these soft powers to further legitimize his political agenda? A qualitative text analysis was performed to answer the questions. The conclusions drawn is that Putin’s actions today are heavily influenced by his first presidency. Furthermore he extensively use the soft powers, and they have a significant influence on how the Russian authoritarian regime manage to consolidate power. Moreover the proficiency shown while manipulating these arenas leads to Putin being able to further legitimise his political agenda.

It is the purpose of this study to investigate the possibilities of a new instrument designed to measure authoritarian personalities.

What determines governance quality in authoritarian settings? The existing literature on governance concentrates on democratic governance and provides no ready answer. By focusing on the world’s largest authoritarian country, China, this study delineates an authoritarian model of governance quality. In the model, I argue that in order for good governance to occur, an authoritarian government must have both the ability and the desire to govern well, and the current authoritarian government in China has both. Specifically, its ability to govern well comes from 1) its sovereignty within the territory, 2) its fiscal resources, and 3) its party-state structure blended with decentralization, term and age limits, and performance-based promotion. Its desire to govern well comes from 1) the regime’s need for political legitimacy; 2) good governance as an important source of political legitimacy; 3) the decay of alternative sources of legitimacy; 4) the double uncertainty of authoritarian politics that compels leaders to highly active in delivering good governance. I formulate key hypotheses and test them with a variety of original datasets. The Chinese County Governance Data are collected from county government websites. The data on county-level public opinion are constructed through Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) based on the 2010 Chinese General Social Survey and the 2000 national census data. County leader characteristics are collected from Database of Local Officials. The empirical analysis general supports the model. My study reveals an authoritarian logic of governance which centers on the party state’s top-down control and the regime’s insecurity about political legitimacy. My study also demonstrates that China’s model of governance is not shared by most authoritarian countries today.

2020 has been a year thoroughly marked by the global COVID-19 pandemic, and the ways in which different governments have sought to manage the crisis have sparked controversy. This paper aims to challenge and ultimately falsify the theory of “authoritarian advantage” in crisis management using a single-case study design of most-likely logic. This is done by performing a case study of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in China based on the argument that contrary to suggestions made by previous research, the measures undertaken by the Chinese regime in the initial phase of the crisis do not exhibit the advantages expected of an authoritarian political system. The study goes on to reconstruct the chain of events during the initial response and analyzes whether the response unfolds as expected by set theoretical criteria of benefiting from China’s institutional preconditions. The analysis finds that the theory of “authoritarian advantage” loses credibility in this case, and further allows for the conclusion that any “advantages” of the regime are largely offset by critical “disadvantages”. This leads to a discussion opening up for the possibility that there is no single political system that is best suited for crisis management, as different systems enjoy different strengths as well as weaknesses. Understanding the circumstances of this is also recommended as a field of future research.

The case of Syria presents an example of a regime performing authoritarian norms of peacebuilding that is indicative of new forms of geographical power implementing alternative models of post-conflict order. Bashar al-Assad utilises authoritarian conflict management to intensify its strategy of binary othering on which to exercise sectarian- infused practices of discrimination and violence to consolidate its power and subsequent legitimacy. The process of authoritarian upgrading left the Assad regime with vulnerabilities that were exploited during the uprising in 2011. Unable to control the protests, Assad intensified authoritarian and illiberal practices as a means to manage the civil war that emerged. Through discursive, spatial and economic practices, Assad was able to retain his seat of power. For example, drawing upon sectarianism as a tool of control, Assad put into place a process of binary othering that classifies citizens as loyal or disloyal. Citizens deemed disloyal are punished through a variety of measures. The authoritarian practices have led to dire conditions for the Syrian people, and are becoming entrenched into very structure of society through the process of reconstruction. However, liberal forms of peacebuilding lack the leverage to counter these practices. Keywords Syria;...

The transfer of power to African leaders, at the end of the colonial era gave birth to authoritarian regimes. African Nationalist leaders liberated the continent from the chains of colonialism and bound it in the stone walls of authoritarianism and dictatorship. This is because Africa inherited institutions that were meant to be oppressive of the colonised peoples. These institutions had no room for political pluralism, public participation, free speech, a free press, and free movement among other fundamental rights and freedoms that allow for democratic governance to flourish. Without undergoing major transformations, African governments remained a product of their colonial heritage naturally becoming totalitarian, oppressive and undemocratic. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2010. / A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Girmachew Aneme of the Faculty of Law, University of Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia. 2010. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM