A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes

Honorata Mazepus, Wouter Veenendaal, Anthea MCCARTHY-JONES, Juan Trak Vasquez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Despite the growing body of research on ‘hybrid regimes’, few studies address the issue of their domestic legitimacy. Targeting this gap in the literature, this article explores the legitimation strategies of three hybrid regimes around the globe: Russia, Venezuela, and Seychelles. Although these countries differ markedly in almost every aspect that can be thought of, the political systems of all three cases combine formally democratic institutions with authoritarian political dynamics. The qualitative, comparative analysis presented in this article uncovers a number of remarkable similarities between the regimes’ respective legitimization strategies. However, while the strategies for engendering legitimacy are similar across the cases, the content of these strategies is different: the Russian leadership mainly relies on preserving order and nationalism, the Venezuelan regime employs a more populist strategy, and the Seychellois regime uses a more personal and particularistic approach. Our findings not only provide insights into the mechanisms hybrid regimes use to consolidate their authority, but also highlight important differences and similarities between hybrid regimes around the world.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)350-369
Number of pages20
JournalPolicy Studies
Volume37
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

legitimation
regime
legitimacy
Indian Ocean
Venezuela
political system
nationalism
Russia
leadership

Cite this

Mazepus, H., Veenendaal, W., MCCARTHY-JONES, A., & Trak Vasquez, J. (2016). A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. Policy Studies, 37(4), 350-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855
Mazepus, Honorata ; Veenendaal, Wouter ; MCCARTHY-JONES, Anthea ; Trak Vasquez, Juan. / A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. In: Policy Studies. 2016 ; Vol. 37, No. 4. pp. 350-369.
@article{1664c5febdba4faf8d636644222853ea,
title = "A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes",
abstract = "ABSTRACT: Despite the growing body of research on ‘hybrid regimes’, few studies address the issue of their domestic legitimacy. Targeting this gap in the literature, this article explores the legitimation strategies of three hybrid regimes around the globe: Russia, Venezuela, and Seychelles. Although these countries differ markedly in almost every aspect that can be thought of, the political systems of all three cases combine formally democratic institutions with authoritarian political dynamics. The qualitative, comparative analysis presented in this article uncovers a number of remarkable similarities between the regimes’ respective legitimization strategies. However, while the strategies for engendering legitimacy are similar across the cases, the content of these strategies is different: the Russian leadership mainly relies on preserving order and nationalism, the Venezuelan regime employs a more populist strategy, and the Seychellois regime uses a more personal and particularistic approach. Our findings not only provide insights into the mechanisms hybrid regimes use to consolidate their authority, but also highlight important differences and similarities between hybrid regimes around the world.",
author = "Honorata Mazepus and Wouter Veenendaal and Anthea MCCARTHY-JONES and {Trak Vasquez}, Juan",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "350--369",
journal = "Policy Studies",
issn = "0144-2872",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

Mazepus, H, Veenendaal, W, MCCARTHY-JONES, A & Trak Vasquez, J 2016, 'A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes', Policy Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 350-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855

A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. / Mazepus, Honorata; Veenendaal, Wouter; MCCARTHY-JONES, Anthea; Trak Vasquez, Juan.

In: Policy Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2016, p. 350-369.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes

AU - Mazepus, Honorata

AU - Veenendaal, Wouter

AU - MCCARTHY-JONES, Anthea

AU - Trak Vasquez, Juan

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - ABSTRACT: Despite the growing body of research on ‘hybrid regimes’, few studies address the issue of their domestic legitimacy. Targeting this gap in the literature, this article explores the legitimation strategies of three hybrid regimes around the globe: Russia, Venezuela, and Seychelles. Although these countries differ markedly in almost every aspect that can be thought of, the political systems of all three cases combine formally democratic institutions with authoritarian political dynamics. The qualitative, comparative analysis presented in this article uncovers a number of remarkable similarities between the regimes’ respective legitimization strategies. However, while the strategies for engendering legitimacy are similar across the cases, the content of these strategies is different: the Russian leadership mainly relies on preserving order and nationalism, the Venezuelan regime employs a more populist strategy, and the Seychellois regime uses a more personal and particularistic approach. Our findings not only provide insights into the mechanisms hybrid regimes use to consolidate their authority, but also highlight important differences and similarities between hybrid regimes around the world.

AB - ABSTRACT: Despite the growing body of research on ‘hybrid regimes’, few studies address the issue of their domestic legitimacy. Targeting this gap in the literature, this article explores the legitimation strategies of three hybrid regimes around the globe: Russia, Venezuela, and Seychelles. Although these countries differ markedly in almost every aspect that can be thought of, the political systems of all three cases combine formally democratic institutions with authoritarian political dynamics. The qualitative, comparative analysis presented in this article uncovers a number of remarkable similarities between the regimes’ respective legitimization strategies. However, while the strategies for engendering legitimacy are similar across the cases, the content of these strategies is different: the Russian leadership mainly relies on preserving order and nationalism, the Venezuelan regime employs a more populist strategy, and the Seychellois regime uses a more personal and particularistic approach. Our findings not only provide insights into the mechanisms hybrid regimes use to consolidate their authority, but also highlight important differences and similarities between hybrid regimes around the world.

U2 - 10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855

DO - 10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 350

EP - 369

JO - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

SN - 0144-2872

IS - 4

ER -

Mazepus H, Veenendaal W, MCCARTHY-JONES A, Trak Vasquez J. A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. Policy Studies. 2016;37(4):350-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1157855