Ideocracies, or ideological dictatorships, such as the "Third Reich", the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have, much more than any other kinds of autocracy, characterized the history of the 20th century. Despite their undeniable loss of significance, ideocracies have not disappeared from the world in the 21st century. This book explores the functioning of ideocracies and analyses the typical interplay of legitimation, co-optation and repression which autocratic elites use in an attempt to stabilize their rule. In the first part of the book, the contributors discuss the conceptual history of the ideocracy notion. The second part offers case studies pertaining to the Soviet State, Italy, the National Socialist Regime, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cuba. Finally, the third part compares various ideocracies and draws together key themes. Uniting the perspectives of history, philosophy and political science through the use of case studies and systematic comparisons, this book offers a unique examination of ideocracies both past and present which will be of interest to students and scholars researching political regimes, political history and comparative politics, as well as other disciplines.

Authoritarianism research has evolved into one of the fastest growing research fields in comparative politics. The newly awakened interest in autocratic regimes goes hand in hand with a lack of systematic research on the results of the political and substantive policy performance of variants of autocratic regimes. The contributions in this second volume of Comparing Autocracies are united by the assumption that the performance of political regimes and their persistence are related. Furthermore, autocratic institutions and the specific configurations of elite actors within authoritarian regime coalitions induce dictators to undertake certain policies, and that different authoritarian institutions are therefore an important piece of the puzzle of government performance in dictatorships. Based on these two prepositions, the contributions explore the differences between autocracies and democracies, as well as between different forms of non-democratic regimes, in regard to their outcome performance in selected policy fields; how political institutions affect autocratic performance and persistence; whether policy performance matter for the persistence of authoritarian rule; and what happens to dictators once autocratic regimes fall. This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Ideocracies, or ideological dictatorships, such as the "Third Reich", the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have, much more than any other kinds of autocracy, characterized the history of the 20th century. Despite their undeniable loss of significance, ideocracies have not disappeared from the world in the 21st century. This book explores the functioning of ideocracies and analyses the typical interplay of legitimation, co-optation and repression which autocratic elites use in an attempt to stabilize their rule. In the first part of the book, the contributors discuss the conceptual history of the ideocracy notion. The second part offers case studies pertaining to the Soviet State, Italy, the National Socialist Regime, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cuba. Finally, the third part compares various ideocracies and draws together key themes. Uniting the perspectives of history, philosophy and political science through the use of case studies and systematic comparisons, this book offers a unique examination of ideocracies both past and present which will be of interest to students and scholars researching political regimes, political history and comparative politics, as well as other disciplines.

Authoritarianism research has evolved into one of the fastest growing research fields in comparative politics. The newly awakened interest in autocratic regimes goes hand in hand with a lack of systematic research on the results of the political and substantive policy performance of variants of autocratic regimes. The contributions in this second volume of Comparing Autocracies are united by the assumption that the performance of political regimes and their persistence are related. Furthermore, autocratic institutions and the specific configurations of elite actors within authoritarian regime coalitions induce dictators to undertake certain policies, and that different authoritarian institutions are therefore an important piece of the puzzle of government performance in dictatorships. Based on these two prepositions, the contributions explore the differences between autocracies and democracies, as well as between different forms of non-democratic regimes, in regard to their outcome performance in selected policy fields; how political institutions affect autocratic performance and persistence; whether policy performance matter for the persistence of authoritarian rule; and what happens to dictators once autocratic regimes fall.

This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Despite the so-called Third Wave of Democratization, many autocracies have been resilient in the face of political change. Moreover, many of the transition processes that could be included in the Third Wave have reached a standstill, or, at the very least, have taken a turn for the worse, leading sometimes to new forms of non-democratic regimes. As a result of these developments, the research on autocracies has experienced a revival in recent times. This unique two-volume work aims at taking stock of recent research and providing new conceptual, theoretical, and empirical insights into autocratic rule in the early twenty-first century. It is organized into two parts. The contributions in this first volume analyse the trajectories, manifestations and perspectives of non-democratic rule in general and autocratic rule in particular. It brings together some of the leading authoritarianism scholars in Europe and North America who address three broad questions: How to conceptualize and measure forms of autocratic regimes? What determines the persistence of autocratic rule? What is the role of political institutions, legitimation, ideology, and repression for the survival of different forms of autocratic rule? This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Inhalt Einleitung VII 1 Was ist ein politikwissenschaftliches Schlusselwerk? VII 2 Aufbau der Beitrage XI Ein - sehr kurzer - Streifzug durch die Politikwissenschaft XV Liste der Schlusselwerke XXV Autorenliste XXXIII Schlusselwerke der Politikwissenschaft 1 - 493 Personenregister 495 Einleitung VII Einleitung 1 Was ist ein politikwissenschaftliches Schlusselwerk? Wahrend die Studierenden in den Naturwissenschaften mit einigen Standa- lehrbuchern auskommen und ansonsten praktisch tatig sind, nimmt das Lesen einen wesentlichen Teil des Studiums der Politikwissenschaft in Anspruch. Wer nur ungern liest, sollte daher den politikwissenschaftlichen Weg m- den. Wo soll man aber anfangen mit dem Lesen? Die Vielzahl der polit- wissenschaftlichen Werke ist selbst fur den ausgebildeten Politikwiss- schaftler kaum uberschaubar, den Neuling im Fach droht sie schier unter sich zu begraben. Dieser Band will dem Leser bei der Orientierung helfen. Aus dem reichhaltigen Meer der Schriften wurden jene herausgefischt, die in besonderem Masse die Entwicklung der Politikwissenschaft spiegeln. Zunachst einmal ist festzulegen, welche Bucher als wissenschaftlich g- ten koennen. In den Worten von Gary King, Robert O. Keohane und Sidney Verba ( ? King/Keohane/Verba 1994) dient wissenschaftliche Forschung dazu, "auf der Grundlage von empirischen Informationen uber die Welt Schlussfolgerungen zu ziehen" (S. 7). Ebenso wenig wie nur ein Friseur Haare schneiden kann, ist demnach nur ein Wissenschaftler fahig, wiss- schaftlich zu arbeiten. Wer ein wissenschaftliches Werk verfasst, muss also nicht zwangslaufig eine wissenschaftliche Ausbildung durchlaufen haben und an einer Universitat arbeiten.

Nach den Terroranschlagen des 11. September 2001 gerat der Islamismus als derzeit gefahrlichste Variante des politischen Extremismus zunehmend ins Blickfeld. Doch auch seine anderen Spielarten sind nicht zu unterschatzen. Diese Einfuhrung bietet einen Uberblick uber die verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen des politischen Extremismus. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Betrachtung Deutschlands. Ein vergleichender Blick fallt auf Frankreich, Italien und Grossbritannien. Gewalttater von rechts und links behandelt die Studie ebenso wie rechts- und linksextremistische Parteien. Uberblickskapitel klaren folgende Fragen: Welche Anhangerschaft hat der Extremismus von rechts und links in Deutschland? Welche Ursachen hat der politische Extremismus? Wie schutzt sich die (deutsche) Demokratie vor dem Extremismus?

Mitte 1986 richtete Jurgen Habermas seine "Kampfansage" an die "Neokonservativen". Linke wie rechte Intellektuelle sammelten nun ihre Bataillone, der "Historikerstreit" brach los. Der Politikwissenschaftler Steffen Kailitz sichtet das Schlachtgelande unter dem Blickwinkel der Frage "Welche Strukturen und Elemente der politischen Deutungskultur spiegeln sich in dieser Kontroverse?". Der "Historikerstreit" eignet sich ideal fur diesen Ansatz, weil er der fur die Ausgestaltung der deutschen politischen Deutungskultur bedeutendste Konflikt ist. Von der "Einzigartigkeit nationalsozialistischer Verbrechen" bis zum "Verfassungspatriotismus" pragten die Streitenden entscheidende Muster zur Deutung deutscher Geschichte und Gegenwart.