Affiliation:
1. Department of Politics, University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Abstract
The use of the phrase “authoritarian practices” by political scientists is generally a response to the limitations of classifying regimes as either democratic or authoritarian. It seeks to remedy (a) the binary nature of the distinction, which by definition provides no space to detect “authoritarianness” in democracies, (b) the residual and passive nature of the concept of “authoritarian regimes” in such regime classification, (c) its focus on central state institutions, which likewise provides no space to detect “authoritarianness” in institutions or processes below, above, or beyond the state, or (d) a combination of these shortcomings. The chapter discusses four distinct but overlapping uses of “authoritarian practices,” and the conceptualizations and empirical studies that they have spawned, as well as some critiques. The final section will discuss recent convergence between these strands of literature, as well as drawing attention to avenues of research yet to be further pursued.