How authoritarian rulers seek to legitimize repression: framing mass killings in Egypt and Uzbekistan

Abstract

How do authoritarian rulers legitimate repressive actions against their own citizens? Although most research depicts repression and legitimation as opposed strategies of political rule, justified coercion against some groups may generate legitimacy in the eyes of other parts of the population. Building upon this suggested link between legitimation and repression, this article studies the justifications of mass killings. To this end, framing theory is combined with recent research on the domestic and international dimensions of authoritarian rule. We contend that frames are directed towards specific audiences at home and abroad. Moreover, given the common threats at the global level and the diffusion of repressive tactics, we assume that learning processes influence discursive justifications of repression in authoritarian regimes. We provide an analysis of government rhetoric by comparing the protest crackdowns of Rabi'a 'Adawiya Square in Egypt and Fergana Valley in Uzbekistan, taking into account the audiences and the sources of the frames that justify repression. In both cases, we find the terrorism frame to emerge as dominant.

Between Tradition and Modernity: Customary Structures as Agents in Local Governance in Ghana

“…Modern structures are shaped by functions of production, distribution, reproduction, objectivity, and rationality (Lutz and Linder, 2004: 7). Unlike appealing to age-old customs and traditions, popular and periodic elections or sometimes bureaucratic procedures and tactics become the yardstick of leadership selection in modern structures (Edel and Josua, 2018; Lutz and Linder, 2004: 7). The source of legitimate power of formal structures is sometimes laid down in legal processes that define the existing relationship between those exercising power and those to which power is exercised.…”

Legitimation in post‐revolutionary Egypt: Al‐Sisi and the renewal of authoritarianism

“…4 The emphasis on his "missionary role" is connected to his first and most important claim for legitimacy as the provider of security and stability which has become a recurring motif in all his speeches and statements 5 and was defined by Rutherford as "protection pact" (Rutherford, 2018). The increased terrorism after the overthrow of Morsi allowed al-Sisi to claim a "negative legitimacy" that is based on protecting the population from the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist organizations, the imminent threats to the Egyptian nation and its civil culture (Edel & Josua, 2018;Shahin, 2017).…”

The Politics of Repression in Central Asia: The Cases of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan

“…Thus, the stability of authoritarian regimes depends on three pillars: cooptation, repression, and legitimization (Gerschewski, 2013, p. 18-23). Edel and Josua (2017) argue that autocrats often try to legitimize repressive actions against their own citizens through two types of discursive justifications: (1) social control under the name of ensuring stability and security, and (2) social change with repression framed as a necessary tool for "progress". The justifications regarding social change are generally used in transitional societies, where the regimes need to mobilize the masses (Edel and Josua, 2017, p. 7).…”