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

This article covers the study of modern authoritarianism in institution-targeted paradigm and describes the main trends in modern research: refinement of classification and measurement of authoritarian regimes; analysis of factors influencing their stability and survival. It considers continuous and categorical approaches to classification of political regimes. Authoritarianism is defined as a form of organization of political and state orders based on the use of informal practices in order to retain the power of the ruling political actor (individual or collective) and redistribute the national resources in his interest. This article also presents a new type of authoritarian regimes – neo-authoritarian, where depending on the current political situation and tasks of political and state governance faced by the regime, the dominant mechanism is either systemic corruption or politically motivated state power coercion alongside permanent manipulation of public opinion. The typological analysis of modern authoritarian regimes presented in the article identifies four categorial groups: authoritarian monarchies, communist regimes, postcolonial dictatorships and neo-authoritarian regimes. The latter is divided into two sub-groups: transformational neo-authoritarian regimes established as a result of overthrow of previous dictatorial regimes, or authoritarian reversals; post-Soviet authoritarian regimes stemming from the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the same type of governing social stratum is a direct legacy of the Soviet party and economic nomenklatura. The boundaries between postcolonial dictatorships and neo-authoritarian regimes are conditional and flexible. In situations critical to retaining power, neo-authoritarian regimes use a full range of practices of politically motivated violence intrinsic to dictatorships, while dictatorial regimes employ a wide array of methods of neo-authoritarian regimes to simulate compliance with modern requirements and demonstrate “softening of customs”. The article suggests a topical research trend – analysis of modern practices of authoritarian rule with regards to political and historical dynamics, endogenous and exogenous factors caused by postindustrial civilizational transit and impacting on such practices.

Authoritariansm of the 21st Century: Analysis in the Institutional Purpose Paradigm