Comparing Authoritarian Publics: The Benefits and Risks of Three Types of Publics for Autocrats
Comparing Authoritarian Publics: The Benefits and Risks of Three Types of Publics for Autocrats
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ct/qtz015
复制
发表时间：
2020-05
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
F. Toepfl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Toepfl
研究人员在比较非民主背景下的政治传播时，目前缺乏一个广泛认可的理论框架来指导他们的工作。为了填补这一空白，本文提出了一种理论解释，建议不要比较威权媒体系统，而是“威权公众”。借鉴多元公共领域的理论，描绘了两种类型：（a）在独裁政权内运作的部分公众的三重类型；（b）“广大公众”的三重类型，在独裁政权之间进行区分。正如人们所争论的，威权政权的广大公众可以由三种类型的部分公众组成：（a）不批判的公众，（b）政策批评的公众，以及（c）领导批评的公众。参考有关非民主政权中正式民主机构出现的政治学文献，批评公众被解释为帮助独裁者执行重要任务的机构。对于独裁者来说，与批评公众相关的利益和风险与其他伪民主机构的利益和风险相当。
Researchers comparing political communication across non-democratic contexts presently lack a widely acknowledged theoretical framework to guide their 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 theories of the multiple public sphere, two typologies are delineated: (a) a three-fold typology of partial publics, operating within authoritarian regimes and (b) a three-fold typology of “publics-at-large,” to be distinguished across authoritarian regimes. As it is argued, the publics-at-large of authoritarian regimes can be composed of three types of partial publics: (a) uncritical, (b) policy-critical, and (c) leadership-critical publics. With reference to political science literature about the emergence of formally democratic institutions in non-democratic regimes, critical publics are interpreted as institutions that help autocrats carry out important tasks. The benefits and risks associated with critical publics for autocrats are comparable to those of other pseudo-democratic institutions.