Random Variable

To get into the spirit of blogging again, perhaps I should start writing about my courses this year. So, first off, it’s Democracy and Authoritarianism, taught by David Styan.

We just had the introductory lecture, but next week we’re looking at military coups and will be talking about legitmacy for authoritarian regimes in the seminar.

My initial thoughts, without even bothering to do a cursory literature review:

In addition to the three types of legitimacy given by Weber [1], I’ve been thinking about a further three types of legitimacy for authoritarian regimes; goal-oriented, performance, and electoral.

Now, it would seem that these types of legitimacy are at least conditioned by the times, or in other words, are more timeless than Weber’s three types.

You might want to term this ideology, and leave it at that. However, you might want to consider some of the modern work on institutional norms. In particular, the work of Dimaggio and Powell [2]. Their claim is that under conditions of environmental uncertainty, competing firms start to mimic one another. I think this is the theoretical basis of Spruyt’s work on the sovereign state [3], but how would it apply in the context of authoritarian states. How about this scenario?

1. Country gains independence after colonialism, and inherits weak civil society.
2. Elites tasked with state-building under severe environmental uncertainty: Cold war, economic catching up with colonial nation-states, fear of international military action.
3. Just a few states (maybe even one or two) choosing authoritarianism might kick off isomorphism across a whole group of states.

What are the effects of theorising the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in this way? It minimises the role of host population culture. However, not to say that elites can’t draw upon cultural repertoires to create organisational norms. It can also lead to regional organisational cultures through mimetic isomorphism (organisations copying each other).

This could part-way explain why goal and performance legitimated authoritarianism exists, but electoral legitimacy is even odder. Why hold elections when you’re going to rule with an iron fist anyway? Clearly an example of ritualistic behaviour, no? Let’s try Meyer and Rowan [4]. They believe that ceremonial behaviour is the effect of rigid organisational formal structure. However, what organisations do to remain effective, is to decouple formal structure from informal behaviour. They then retain legitimacy whilst operating efficiently (on their own terms).

Conclusion:

I am orgBorg.

1. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (Fortress Press, 1965). 

2. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review 48, no. 2 (April 1983): 147-160.

3. H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An analysis of systems change (Princeton University Press, 1994). 

4. J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 340.