Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Comparative research on authoritarianism has largely neglected religion. Yet, in order to understand the logic of authoritarian control over the civil society, it is necessary to study how the authoritarian regimes deal with religious groups. In this paper, lessons from the two rapidly expanding fields on regulation of religion and comparative authoritarianism are combined. In particular, a conceptualization of regulation of religion in the authoritarian context is proposed, according to which positive endorsement of religion can be understood as co-optation, whereas negative restrictions can be seen as repression. By employing data on positive endorsement and negative restrictions on religion from 2014 for ca. 70 countries, three different clusters of authoritarian countries regarding the regulation of religion are identified. Finally, it is argued that capacity and ambition of both the religious groups and the authoritarian regimes are the main determinants of regulation.</jats:p>

Identification of Cross-Country Similarities and Differences in Regulation of Religion Between 2000 and 2014 with Help of Cluster Analysis

“…Finally, our results are also similar to those of Schleutker (2021). This is interesting as she employs cluster analysis and 15 different indicators constructed from only two of the variables employed in the current study (regulation of and restrictions on the majority religion or all religions; specific types of religious support), whereas our study includes two additional indicators (discrimination against minority religions; social regulation of religion).…”

“…Moreover, we study if and how the clustering of the countries changes depending on the variables, which are included in the cluster analysis and on the cut-off points, which define democracy and autocracy. A particular emphasis is given to a discussion regarding the similarities and differences between our classifications and previous work on state–religion relationships in autocratic (Sarkissian 2015; Fox 2019; Philpott 2019; Schleutker 2021) and democratic (Kuru 2007; Madeley 2009; Driessen 2014; Buckley 2017; Soper and Fetzer 2018; Fox 2019) countries. In addition, we discuss how our results can be utilized in future research on religion and politics.…”

Economy of Shadows: The Effects of Restrictive Regulation on Religiosity in China

“…It also makes broader contributions. Many people are interested in the relationship between state and religion generally (e.g., Cokgezen 2022; Cosgel, Langlois, and Miceli 2020; Ettensperger and Schleutker 2022; Howe 2021; Mataic 2018; Schleutker 2021). Many more are interested in the situation of religious minorities, including Christians, who worship under heavy restrictions.…”

Rituals, Propaganda, and Social Regulation: Totalism as a Quasi-Religious System

“…This is when a secular act, such as the inauguration of a totalist leader, is made religious, or when religious rituals, such as traditional folk holidays, are made political. Cooption can also involve nationalizing religious rituals that were once outside the political sphere, such as the commemoration of martyrdom or leaders that were once only celebrated by subcultures of extremists (Koesel, 2014;Schleutker, 2021;Singh, 2014;Yabanci, Taleski, 2018). n Mimicry of a parent religion typically involves the appropriation of religion at the national level, or its repression in place of an ideology that mimics it.…”