Comparing Authoritarian Publics: The Benefits and Risks of Three Types of Publics for Autocrats

• In Event: Political Communication in Authoritarian and Non-Democratic Contexts

Abstract

Researchers investigating political communication across non-democratic contexts presently lack a widely acknowledged theoretical framework to guide their comparative efforts. In order to fill in this gap, this essay develops a theoretical account that proposes comparing not authoritarian media systems but “authoritarian publics”. Drawing on recent theories of the multiple public sphere, it posits that three types of partial publics operate within the multiple publics-at-large of contemporary authoritarian regimes: (1) uncritical, (2) policy-critical, and (3) leadership-critical publics. With reference to political science literature about the emergence of formally democratic institutions in authoritarian regimes, critical publics are interpreted as institutions that help autocrats carry out important tasks. As is argued, the benefits and risks associated with critical publics for autocrats are broadly comparable to those of other pseudo-democratic institutions, such as semi-competitive elections or semi-independent legislatures. Consequences for the study of the emergence, consequences, and management of authoritarian publics are discussed.

Author

• Florian Toepfl, Free U - Berlin