Justifying Repression in Authoritarian Regimes of the Arab World: Official Framing and Target Audiences

专制研究通常将镇压和合法化作为独立的策略进行分析。然而，专制政权的国家官员不仅诉诸暴力来维持权力，而且经常试图为对不同受众的镇压行为辩护。现有的研究并没有将威权主义的这一方面概念化。对某些群体的镇压可能会导致其他目标受众的支持，从而有助于威权政权的维持。反过来，辩解失败可能引发愤怒和更高的动员。该项目旨在通过提出一个新的框架来全面调查镇压的理由，填补专制国家政治沟通的概念空白。它试图回答以下相关问题：镇压是如何正当的，为什么在镇压阿拉伯起义抗议时选择了某些正当理由，并产生了什么影响。对突尼斯和摩洛哥的结构化、重点比较表明，2010-2011年阿拉伯起义期间的类似抗议活动是如何导致国家官员以不同理由镇压的。将使用的方法包括内容和框架分析、过程追踪、档案工作和定性半结构化访谈的实地研究。该项目通过绘制2001年至2010年间突尼斯和摩洛哥对不同反对者的镇压是如何合理的来展开。列出针对不同地区目标的镇压事件和事件的数据集可作为比较专制政权在三个不同领域的镇压框架的基础：除了行政部门采用的镇压外，还分析了引入反恐法的理由。该项目还审查了法庭审判和对持不同政见者的判决中给出的理由。历史概述将后续分析置于背景中。过程追踪有助于调查突尼斯和摩洛哥阿拉伯起义抗议期间各种具体理由的原因和影响。此外，还分析了官方框架和抗议者反框架的动态。国内和国际目标受众的反应对于公民和国际社会何时拒绝或接受专制政权的镇压行为具有启发性。该项目的主要创新是在一个启发式模型中对镇压的理由进行概念化，该模型也可以应用于其他情况。该研究结果有望为抗议和镇压研究做出贡献。对各个领域压抑的差异化分析也超越了已有的作品。威权主义研究将受益于框架方法的应用，但主要来自对国内外目标受众的创新考虑。这为如何利用镇压来维持威权主义提供了一个动态而复杂的视角。

Autocracy research usually analyses repression and legitimation as separate strategies. However, state officials in authoritarian regimes not only resort to brute force for maintaining power, but often attempt to justify repressive acts towards different audiences. Existing research has not conceptualized this aspect of authoritarianism. The repression of some groups may lead to support by other target audiences, contributing to authoritarian regime maintenance. In turn, failing attempts at justification may trigger outrage and higher mobilization. The project seeks to fill this conceptual gap of political communication in autocracies by presenting a novel framework to comprehensively investigate justifications of repression. It seeks to answer the related questions of how repression is justified and why and with what effect certain justifications were chosen in the repression of Arab uprising protests. A structured, focused comparison of Tunisia and Morocco shows how similar protests during the Arab uprisings in 2010-2011 led to repressive responses with diverging justifications by state officials. The methods that will be used include content and frame analysis, process tracing, and field research with archival work as well as qualitative semi-structured interviews.The project sets out by mapping how repression against different opponents was justified in Tunisia and Morocco between 2001 and 2010. A dataset listing repressive episodes and incidents against targets in different regions serves as the basis for comparing authoritarian regimes’ framing of repression in three different areas: In addition to repression employed by the executive, the justifications upon the introduction of antiterror laws are analyzed. The project also scrutinizes the justifications given in court trials and verdicts against dissenters. The historical overview contextualizes the subsequent analysis. Process tracing serves to investigate the reasons for and effects of the specific mix of justifications during the protests of the Arab uprisings in Tunisia and Morocco. Also the dynamics of official framing and protesters’ counterframing are analysed. The reactions by domestic and international target audiences are enlightening as to when citizens and the international community reject or accept repressive acts by authoritarian regimes.The project’s major innovation is the conceptualization of justifications of repression in a heuristic model that can be applied to other contexts as well. The findings are expected to contribute to protest and repression research. Also the differentiated analysis of repression in various areas surpasses existing works. Authoritarianism research will benefit from the application of the framing approach, but mostly from the innovative consideration of domestic and international target audiences. This offers a dynamic and complex perspective on how repression can be used to sustain authoritarianism.