Single-Party Autocracies, Ideology, and Repression

Abstract

Single-Party Autocracies, Ideology, and Repression
Previous studies have argued that single-party autocracies are less repressive than other kinds of autocracies. Challenging this notion, we emphasize that ideological motivations and strategic use of the party apparatus counterbalance the moderating mechanisms associated with single-party autocracies. Based on a global, statistical analysis of the period 1976-2007, we find little evidence that single-party autocracies are generally less repressive than other kinds of non-democratic regimes. Even though single-party autocracies do indeed violate physical integrity rights less than personalist and military autocracies, they tend to repress such rights more than do monarchies. Regarding civil liberties, i.e., freedom of expression, assembly/association, movement, and religion, the repression levels of single-party autocracies are almost indistinguishable from those of other types of autocracies. Separating communist regimes out of the category of single-party regimes does not change the general findings, but reveals that communist regimes are more repressive than other autocracies with respect to civil liberties but not physical integrity rights. This further indicates that non-economic aspirations such as ideology cannot be ignored by those wishing to understand variations in state repression among autocracies.