English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

How and under what conditions do autocratic parties democratise through strength'? Prior scholarship suggests that authoritarian parties embrace political liberalisation when there are warnings of their decline. However, Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) has not ‘conceded-to-thrive’ despite seemingly waning dominance. This paper explains why autocratic parties resist democratisation. Drawing from historical and sociological institutionalism, we examine how established ideas, serving as cognitive filters through which governing elites interpret their environment, become codified in formal institutions. Specifically, we argue how governments respond to political challenges depend on the ‘stickiness’ of the normative foundations of authoritarianism and their manifestations in state institutions. We uncover the ideational and historical contexts of authoritarian institutions and show how they are translated into laws, policies and practices. Using the case of PAP, we consider the microlevel origins and institutional persistence of oneparty dominance and explain how these normative foundations and its subsequent institutionalisation impede political change.

(Not) democratising through strength: core beliefs and the institutions of Singapore’s People’s Action Party