Pub Date : 2024-09-14DOI: 10.1177/00027642241267939
Elizabeth McKenna, Catharina O’Donnell
We develop the concept of the satellite political movement (SPM), a form of movement-party interaction that emerges in support of a particular political leader. We theorize SPMs as grassroots movements that seek to empower a formal political figure by engaging in activism on that individual’s behalf. Examining the cases of Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, we suggest that SPMs may serve as a valuable resource for insurgent political leaders by engaging in year-round campaigning, activating new supporters, and providing political cover for more controversial tactics. We analyze social media content, legal documents, and contemporaneous reporting to illustrate the actors within SPMs, their relationships to the formal political leader they support, and three theoretical mechanisms through which SPMs may bolster political leaders: permanent campaign, radicalism by proxy, and strategic separation.
{"title":"Satellite Political Movements: How Grassroots Activists Bolster Trump and Bolsonaro in the United States and Brazil","authors":"Elizabeth McKenna, Catharina O’Donnell","doi":"10.1177/00027642241267939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241267939","url":null,"abstract":"We develop the concept of the satellite political movement (SPM), a form of movement-party interaction that emerges in support of a particular political leader. We theorize SPMs as grassroots movements that seek to empower a formal political figure by engaging in activism on that individual’s behalf. Examining the cases of Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, we suggest that SPMs may serve as a valuable resource for insurgent political leaders by engaging in year-round campaigning, activating new supporters, and providing political cover for more controversial tactics. We analyze social media content, legal documents, and contemporaneous reporting to illustrate the actors within SPMs, their relationships to the formal political leader they support, and three theoretical mechanisms through which SPMs may bolster political leaders: permanent campaign, radicalism by proxy, and strategic separation.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142265201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-14DOI: 10.1177/00027642241269907
Bryce D. Summary, Camille Mumford
The emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 was a pivotal moment in American politics signaling a right-ward shift among Republican Party primary voters that would later help Donald J. Trump secure the Republican nomination for president in 2016. This article looks back in time analyzing public opinion data concerning the Tea Party movement from 2010 to 2011 examining how opinions changed over time. Specifically, two types of questions are used to plot views of the Tea Party over time: those gauging the favorability of, and support for, the movement. Findings show a decline in Tea Party support over time, with support peaking in November of 2010. This study also examines the influence of question wording on opinions of the Tea Party finding that support or favorability toward the Tea Party movement can vary significantly, depending on the options given to respondents. The implications of these results for the Tea Party movement, and the measurement of public opinion, are also explored.
{"title":"Reading the Tea Leaves: Question Wording and Public Support for the Tea Party Movement","authors":"Bryce D. Summary, Camille Mumford","doi":"10.1177/00027642241269907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241269907","url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 was a pivotal moment in American politics signaling a right-ward shift among Republican Party primary voters that would later help Donald J. Trump secure the Republican nomination for president in 2016. This article looks back in time analyzing public opinion data concerning the Tea Party movement from 2010 to 2011 examining how opinions changed over time. Specifically, two types of questions are used to plot views of the Tea Party over time: those gauging the favorability of, and support for, the movement. Findings show a decline in Tea Party support over time, with support peaking in November of 2010. This study also examines the influence of question wording on opinions of the Tea Party finding that support or favorability toward the Tea Party movement can vary significantly, depending on the options given to respondents. The implications of these results for the Tea Party movement, and the measurement of public opinion, are also explored.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142265202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-06DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268221
N. Yasemin Bavbek, Michael D. Kennedy
Autocracies and their practices have figured prominently in modernity’s making and associated sociologies, but in the 21st century the discourse of StrongMen has surged, coming to dominate our “attention economy.” We consider its various expressions alongside its articulations referencing multiple spaces and consider it a “floating signifier” that appears to explain but in fact distracts from deeper causalities and possible effects of autocratic governance. In this knowledge cultural sociology, we explore how the concept of StrongMen works within nations, with antipodes, and in networks across global and historical conjunctures. We focus in the end on Erdoğan’s 2023 re-election and Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, identifying not only the practices that make them StrongMen, but also how the very concept becomes part of the toolkit implicated in recognizing their autocratic practices.
{"title":"Articulations of StrongMen: A Knowledge Cultural Sociology of Recognizing Autocratic Practices in Russian, Turkish, and Global Regimes","authors":"N. Yasemin Bavbek, Michael D. Kennedy","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268221","url":null,"abstract":"Autocracies and their practices have figured prominently in modernity’s making and associated sociologies, but in the 21st century the discourse of StrongMen has surged, coming to dominate our “attention economy.” We consider its various expressions alongside its articulations referencing multiple spaces and consider it a “floating signifier” that appears to explain but in fact distracts from deeper causalities and possible effects of autocratic governance. In this knowledge cultural sociology, we explore how the concept of StrongMen works within nations, with antipodes, and in networks across global and historical conjunctures. We focus in the end on Erdoğan’s 2023 re-election and Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, identifying not only the practices that make them StrongMen, but also how the very concept becomes part of the toolkit implicated in recognizing their autocratic practices.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-06DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268346
Luiza Monetti
This article investigates the strategies modern-day autocrats use to delegitimate the press as a means of consolidating power, including in democratic states. Using content analysis and Brazil as a case study, I examine Bolsonaro’s online discourse on X and YouTube, during the second half of his administration (January 2021–December 2022). I argue that Bolsonaro endeavors to promote an image of the press that centers on three elements: unreliability, obsolescence, and being an enemy to the people. The delegitimation of the press through discursive, insidious means suggests a change in the way autocrats exercise power. Rather than deploying the repressive tactics of old, modern autocrats are updating their toolbox to monopolize power while enjoying the legitimacy normally granted by democratic norms. These findings raise questions about the dispersion of authoritarian practices in supposed democracies.
{"title":"Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Autocratic Subversion of Brazil’s Fourth Estate","authors":"Luiza Monetti","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268346","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the strategies modern-day autocrats use to delegitimate the press as a means of consolidating power, including in democratic states. Using content analysis and Brazil as a case study, I examine Bolsonaro’s online discourse on X and YouTube, during the second half of his administration (January 2021–December 2022). I argue that Bolsonaro endeavors to promote an image of the press that centers on three elements: unreliability, obsolescence, and being an enemy to the people. The delegitimation of the press through discursive, insidious means suggests a change in the way autocrats exercise power. Rather than deploying the repressive tactics of old, modern autocrats are updating their toolbox to monopolize power while enjoying the legitimacy normally granted by democratic norms. These findings raise questions about the dispersion of authoritarian practices in supposed democracies.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-04DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268575
Flora Harmon, Michelle Salazar Pérez
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and childcare systems in the United States have been grounded in colonial and racist origins and capitalistic frameworks, and continue to contribute to contemporary inequities. In this article, we suggest a reframing of ECEC, one inspired by Black feminist thought that problematizes economic rationales for childcare, and the devaluing of educator knowledges, especially educators of color. Through a discussion of Black Feminist Care and professional learning as one site of transformation, we illustrate how Black feminisms can uproot oppressive systems, disrupting and transforming childcare in a way that is anti-racist and equitable.
{"title":"Transforming the Legacy of Colonial and Racialized Inequities in Childcare Systems in the United States: (Re)Framing Futures Through Black Feminist Thought","authors":"Flora Harmon, Michelle Salazar Pérez","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268575","url":null,"abstract":"Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and childcare systems in the United States have been grounded in colonial and racist origins and capitalistic frameworks, and continue to contribute to contemporary inequities. In this article, we suggest a reframing of ECEC, one inspired by Black feminist thought that problematizes economic rationales for childcare, and the devaluing of educator knowledges, especially educators of color. Through a discussion of Black Feminist Care and professional learning as one site of transformation, we illustrate how Black feminisms can uproot oppressive systems, disrupting and transforming childcare in a way that is anti-racist and equitable.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-29DOI: 10.1177/00027642241267926
Deisy Del Real, Cecilia Menjívar
This special double issue identifies the tools and conditions that allow (re)emerging autocrats to undermine democratic traditions and constrain civil rights across the world. In our introduction, we posit that identifying the tools of the established, emerging, and aspiring authoritarians in today’s world is vital, theoretically and practically. It allows us to identify common denominators across specific contexts to advance knowledge about the features and risks that authoritarian regimes pose today. It also permits us to reveal the inter-state and transnational expert networks through which autocrats share strategies, information, and resources to remain in power. Through a global and comparative lens, we thematically organize the articles’ key findings. The articles reveal a set of tools of authoritarianism that (re)emerging autocrats use to control media to manipulate public perceptions and delegitimize opponents and critics, seek to maintain the legitimacy of a democratic rule by aligning with “grassroots” social movements composed of extremists and hate organized groups, redefine the meaning of democracy, and use a range of repressive methods domestically and abroad, all while maintaining a façade of democracy. This special issue also captures variation in the successful deployment of autocratic tools as authors caution against equating conditions across different autocratic regimes. We bookend the special issue with a brief reflection on populism on the left and right and what it means for the main themes of the special issue.
{"title":"The Tools of Autocracy Worldwide: Authoritarian Networks, the Façade of Democracy, and Neo-Repression","authors":"Deisy Del Real, Cecilia Menjívar","doi":"10.1177/00027642241267926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241267926","url":null,"abstract":"This special double issue identifies the tools and conditions that allow (re)emerging autocrats to undermine democratic traditions and constrain civil rights across the world. In our introduction, we posit that identifying the tools of the established, emerging, and aspiring authoritarians in today’s world is vital, theoretically and practically. It allows us to identify common denominators across specific contexts to advance knowledge about the features and risks that authoritarian regimes pose today. It also permits us to reveal the inter-state and transnational expert networks through which autocrats share strategies, information, and resources to remain in power. Through a global and comparative lens, we thematically organize the articles’ key findings. The articles reveal a set of tools of authoritarianism that (re)emerging autocrats use to control media to manipulate public perceptions and delegitimize opponents and critics, seek to maintain the legitimacy of a democratic rule by aligning with “grassroots” social movements composed of extremists and hate organized groups, redefine the meaning of democracy, and use a range of repressive methods domestically and abroad, all while maintaining a façade of democracy. This special issue also captures variation in the successful deployment of autocratic tools as authors caution against equating conditions across different autocratic regimes. We bookend the special issue with a brief reflection on populism on the left and right and what it means for the main themes of the special issue.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-22DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268590
Alice Fubini, Alessandra Lo Piccolo
Civil society organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and advance their anti-corruption goals. However, scholars have yet to investigate how civil society organizations’ use of digital technologies impacts their role as whistleblowing actors and what consequences this might entail. Moving from this gap, the article explores how civil society organizations exploit digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and how their use of digital technologies affects patterns of interactions with institutional actors in the whistleblowing process. The article combines situational and thematic analysis to investigate three whistleblowing initiatives deployed by Italian civil society organizations: Linea Libera, the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre for Whistleblowers, and Whistleblowing PA. The results show that grassroots whistleblowing initiatives are more than just services or tools but represent whistleblowing infrastructures, running on more or less sophisticated technologies, which grant their developers a role as low- or high-tech intermediaries in the whistleblowing process, in turn affecting the relational dynamics between grassroots and institutional actors and civil society organizations’ influence over the whistleblowing process.
民间社会组织越来越多地依靠数字技术介入举报过程，推进其反腐败目标。然而，学者们尚未研究民间组织对数字技术的使用如何影响其作为举报者的角色，以及由此可能带来的后果。本文从这一空白出发，探讨了民间组织如何利用数字技术介入举报过程，以及他们对数字技术的使用如何影响举报过程中与机构行为者的互动模式。文章结合情景分析和主题分析，对意大利民间社会组织的三项举报行动进行了调查：Linea Libera、举报人宣传和法律咨询中心以及 PA 举报组织。研究结果表明，基层举报行动不仅仅是服务或工具，而且代表着举报基础设施，在或多或少的先进技术上运行，这使其开发者在举报过程中扮演着低技术或高技术中介的角色，进而影响基层和机构行为者之间的关系动态以及民间社会组织对举报过程的影响力。
{"title":"Anti-Corruption Initiatives and the Digital Challenge: The Role of Civil Society Organizations and Whistleblowing Infrastructures in the Italian Context","authors":"Alice Fubini, Alessandra Lo Piccolo","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268590","url":null,"abstract":"Civil society organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and advance their anti-corruption goals. However, scholars have yet to investigate how civil society organizations’ use of digital technologies impacts their role as whistleblowing actors and what consequences this might entail. Moving from this gap, the article explores how civil society organizations exploit digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and how their use of digital technologies affects patterns of interactions with institutional actors in the whistleblowing process. The article combines situational and thematic analysis to investigate three whistleblowing initiatives deployed by Italian civil society organizations: Linea Libera, the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre for Whistleblowers, and Whistleblowing PA. The results show that grassroots whistleblowing initiatives are more than just services or tools but represent whistleblowing infrastructures, running on more or less sophisticated technologies, which grant their developers a role as low- or high-tech intermediaries in the whistleblowing process, in turn affecting the relational dynamics between grassroots and institutional actors and civil society organizations’ influence over the whistleblowing process.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-19DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268275
Javier Corrales
Populism is hard to contain in across democracies because it is the sugar, salt, and fat of contemporary politics. I borrow from research on ultraprocessed foods to develop this metaphor. The modern food industry creates ultraprocessed foods by oversupplying naturally occurring macronutrients (sugar, salt, and fat) and recombining them to create new foods that are distortions of the real thing. These new pretend foods are both addictive and toxic. Likewise, I argue that authoritarian-populist leaders take natural tenets of democracy—for example, policies to help the voiceless (sugar), competition against opponents (salt), and reform agenda saturation (fat)—and supply them in combinations and quantities that end up distorting democracy. The result is a new regime that veers easily into authoritarianism (toxicity) while in the process generating hard-core followership (addictiveness). I also discuss the way authoritarian populists from both the left and the right have emulated each other since the 1980s, while introducing their own tweaks to their steals. In the end, despite important differences, both left and right-wing populism are far more similar to each other than they each care to recognize.
{"title":"Why Populism is the Sugar, Salt, and Fat of Our Politics. . . with Variations: A Reflection","authors":"Javier Corrales","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268275","url":null,"abstract":"Populism is hard to contain in across democracies because it is the sugar, salt, and fat of contemporary politics. I borrow from research on ultraprocessed foods to develop this metaphor. The modern food industry creates ultraprocessed foods by oversupplying naturally occurring macronutrients (sugar, salt, and fat) and recombining them to create new foods that are distortions of the real thing. These new pretend foods are both addictive and toxic. Likewise, I argue that authoritarian-populist leaders take natural tenets of democracy—for example, policies to help the voiceless (sugar), competition against opponents (salt), and reform agenda saturation (fat)—and supply them in combinations and quantities that end up distorting democracy. The result is a new regime that veers easily into authoritarianism (toxicity) while in the process generating hard-core followership (addictiveness). I also discuss the way authoritarian populists from both the left and the right have emulated each other since the 1980s, while introducing their own tweaks to their steals. In the end, despite important differences, both left and right-wing populism are far more similar to each other than they each care to recognize.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-19DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268544
Dale Mineshima-Lowe
This paper discusses the methodological challenges in the design of anti-corruption initiatives utilizing digital technologies. In particular, the focus is on the measurement problem. Using anti-corruption initiatives as case studies, two central issues are raised: firstly, examining and unpacking the rationale for how digital technologies are understood (and assumed) as useful for combating corruption. Secondly, identifying motives and drivers within these anti-corruption initiatives. As digital technology is further employed in anti-corruption initiatives, it seems a good point at present, to stop and reflect on how and why such initiatives are designed with digital technologies. The paper concludes that there is a need to include greater discussion about the underlying methodological challenges around measurements. It requires more openness in terms of the principles and the system of methods used for the selection of digital technologies, connecting choice to the identified objective, and the role of measurement to the objective.
{"title":"Why Do We Do as We Do? How Do We Know What’s Best? Reflecting on the Methodological Challenges of Measurement in Initiatives Using Digital Technologies for Combating Corruption","authors":"Dale Mineshima-Lowe","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268544","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the methodological challenges in the design of anti-corruption initiatives utilizing digital technologies. In particular, the focus is on the measurement problem. Using anti-corruption initiatives as case studies, two central issues are raised: firstly, examining and unpacking the rationale for how digital technologies are understood (and assumed) as useful for combating corruption. Secondly, identifying motives and drivers within these anti-corruption initiatives. As digital technology is further employed in anti-corruption initiatives, it seems a good point at present, to stop and reflect on how and why such initiatives are designed with digital technologies. The paper concludes that there is a need to include greater discussion about the underlying methodological challenges around measurements. It requires more openness in terms of the principles and the system of methods used for the selection of digital technologies, connecting choice to the identified objective, and the role of measurement to the objective.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-13DOI: 10.1177/00027642241268332
Benjamin Garcia Holgado, Raúl Sánchez Urribarri
Why do some elected leaders use legalistic strategies to undermine democracy from within? And under what conditions do they succeed in the use of these strategies? In this article, we argue that the abuse of law is at the center of the toolkit of emerging autocrats. Executives use an ample menu of legal tools and mechanisms (laws, constitutional amendments, executive decrees, administrative resolutions, and regulations by federal agencies) to gradually dismantle each of the components of liberal democracy. We show how the co-optation of the judiciary by the executive helps create an appearance of institutional normalcy that enhances regime legitimacy. In an era of democratic backsliding, executives capture or coerce judiciaries to neutralize opposition threats, carry out their policy agenda, secure and distribute benefits among allies, and dismantle various components that make up liberal democracies. To understand how executives have different levels of success in using multiple legal tools and mechanisms to undermine democracy, we compare three Latin American countries with disparate regime trajectories: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Our paper situates judicial actors at the center of the legal toolkit of emerging autocrats by studying how (and in what ways) courts become illiberal tools for legal reform and implementation to dismantle liberal democracy gradually. We show how, in these cases, “legal narratives” are used to legitimize the slow undermining of democratic rule.
{"title":"The Dark Side of Legalism: Abuse of the Law and Democratic Erosion in Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela","authors":"Benjamin Garcia Holgado, Raúl Sánchez Urribarri","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268332","url":null,"abstract":"Why do some elected leaders use legalistic strategies to undermine democracy from within? And under what conditions do they succeed in the use of these strategies? In this article, we argue that the abuse of law is at the center of the toolkit of emerging autocrats. Executives use an ample menu of legal tools and mechanisms (laws, constitutional amendments, executive decrees, administrative resolutions, and regulations by federal agencies) to gradually dismantle each of the components of liberal democracy. We show how the co-optation of the judiciary by the executive helps create an appearance of institutional normalcy that enhances regime legitimacy. In an era of democratic backsliding, executives capture or coerce judiciaries to neutralize opposition threats, carry out their policy agenda, secure and distribute benefits among allies, and dismantle various components that make up liberal democracies. To understand how executives have different levels of success in using multiple legal tools and mechanisms to undermine democracy, we compare three Latin American countries with disparate regime trajectories: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Our paper situates judicial actors at the center of the legal toolkit of emerging autocrats by studying how (and in what ways) courts become illiberal tools for legal reform and implementation to dismantle liberal democracy gradually. We show how, in these cases, “legal narratives” are used to legitimize the slow undermining of democratic rule.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142227163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：