<i>Egypt</i>
            ’s new authoritarianism from an institutionalist perspective: formal-informal interactions before and after the Egyptian revolution

Awad, Hani

doi:10.1080/13530194.2022.2113503

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a global expansion of neoauthoritarianism that opposes liberal democracy (Repucci, Slipowitz, 2022). Researchers (Awad, 2022;Babones, 2018;Glukhova, 2019;Jordan, 2020;Krastev, 2011;Lendvai-Bainton, Szelewa, 2021;Lewis, 2020;Müller, 2022;Treisman, Guriev, 2015;Wiatr, 2019;Waring, 2018Waring, , 2019Waring, , 2021 use the examples of individual states to study the features of modern authoritarian regimes, compare the models of "new" and "old" authoritarianism. Neoauthoritarianism is seen as a digitized old model of an authoritarian regime that was based on fear (Guriev, Treisman, 2022).…”

Section: The Theoretical and Methodological Fundamentals Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoauthoritarianism as a Challenge to Global Security

Khoma,

Nikolayeva

2024

10.14746/ps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study is to determine the features of neoauthoritarianism as a political regime, its tools, and consequences for global security. It is reasoned that neoauthoritarianism is an undemocratic system of methods and means of exercising centralized state power, which is characterized by the formalisation of democratic principles, institutions and procedures, and the use of digitalization to realize the goals of the regime. The features and tools of neoauthoritarianism are systematized, and the probable consequences of neoauthoritarianism on a global scale are assessed. The following features of neoauthoritarian regimes are determined: reduction of the role of ideology; integration into the global capitalist economy; imitation of a democratic facade; covert forms of pressure and control, manipulation, propaganda; providing a legal basis for any undemocratic initiatives; using the advantages of democratization, globalization, digitalization to achieve the regime’s destructive goals, etc. The following tools of neoauthoritarian influence are determined: power tools, tools of influence within the scope of “soft power,” tools of subversion, tools for changing values, electoral tools, tools of pressure on international organizations, etc. It is proven that due to neoauthoritarian intervention, the risks to global security are increased. The main consequence of ascending neoauthoritarianism on a global scale is the fact that neoauthoritarian regimes have endangered democracy as the dominant global model, reshaping the global security architecture.

show abstract