Durability of the Authoritarian Regimes: The Role of Procedural Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article proposes the theoretical framework for analysis of procedural factors of stability of authoritarian regimes. Following the conceptual provisions of the J. Gerschewski about three key strategies autocrat (legitimation, repression and co-optation), highlighted in the main functions that perform these strategies in relation to the three main subjects of the interaction of an authoritarian leader. It is pointed out that the interaction of an authoritarian leader linked to the three main political actors: the electorate, insiders and outsiders. The key procedural factor of stability of the authoritarian regime is the ability of a political leader to form a coalition loyal to conquer, including the main segments of the influential elite (insiders). Sustainability also the weakness of the elite segment depends on authoritarianism loyalty of major social groups (the electorate), the marginalization of the opposition and who are not included in the ruling coalition (outsiders). Achieving these objectives relate to the possibility of the leader to hold three major strategies: cooptation, repression and legitimation, respecting the proportionality and timeliness of their application. The article concludes that sustainability of authoritarian regimes depends on the capabilities of authoritarian leader to use the above strategies for consolidation and stabilization of their power. At the same time, the efficiency of authoritarianism is not only connected with power resources and capabilities repressive suppression of opponents, but no less with the ability to use the whole range of strategies in adequate proportions. Abuse in the use of only one of the three possible strategies leads to the risk of destabilizing the regime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".