Governing Labour, Strengthening the Regime: The Making of a Paternalist and Politicized Corporatism Under AKP Rule

The process of developing a regulatory framework that can be conditionally defined as anti-russian in Ukraine began around 2014. The array of anti-russian legislation in Ukraine has become a legal response to such intentions of the russian federation. The main purpose of several of the adopted laws is to prevent and counteract russia’s destructive actions for Ukrainian statehood within the framework of national security, national stability, ethnic policy, and memory policy. Direct signs of russia’s political regime as undemocratic, dictatorial, and even totalitarian appeared in Ukrainian legislation after russia’s full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The aim of the article is to examine the peculiarities of defining the political regime of the russian federation in Ukrainian legislation by analysing the essential and substantive content of certain laws on this issue. The methodology is based on legal and comparative analysis. Using a political and legal analysis of the essence and content of laws, the author establishes that rashism is a legally inaccurate, umbrella term that denotes two different phenomena at the same time: a type of totalitarian ideology and a type of political regime. The Ukrainian parliament has created a contradiction in the norms of Ukrainian legislation in terms of defining the Russian political regime. The document is intended to condemn racism both as an ideology and as a racist political regime of the President of the russian federation. At the same time, legal scholars and practitioners are advocating the introduction of the term “rashism” into scientific and everyday discourse as a definition of a political ideology, not a political regime. In this regard, it is recommended that the term “rashism” be used to refer to the political ideology that crystallized during the functioning of putin’s authoritarian political regime (putinism). Key words: russian federation, political regime, authoritarian regime, political ideology, rashism, putinism.

The article examines the problems of corporate regulation and political regime mutual influence, and describes the role and place of corporate regulation in the system of social and normative regulation. The corporate law structure is described as a set of corporate and legal norms from the point of view of narrow and broad approaches. Some features of corporate regulation in liberal, democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are analyzed. It is noted that a democratic political regime is characterized by a variety of corporate structures of a commercial and political nature, the predominance of the dispositive nature of the corporations’ activities legal regulation, and the admissibility of political and public corporations’ broad participation in government. The authors note that in a liberal political regime, there is a high degree of commercial corporations’ autonomy, while limiting the political and social corporations’ activities. The author reveals a variety of approaches to the manifestation of corporate regulation in authoritarian political regimes. It is described that in a totalitarian political regime, corporations actually become a part of the state mechanism, and corporate regulation is actually replaced by direct or delegated regulation of individual executive bodies. It is concluded that there is a connection between the nature of corporate regulation and the political regime of the respective state. It is established that the influence is mutual and stable and is determined both by the properties of certain types of political regimes and by the specifics of national systems of corporate regulation.

Introduction. This is not the first time a scientific attempt to position a hybrid political regime in the article has made, again unsuccessful due to the contradictory nature of this regime, pronounced national specifics of combining democratic and authoritarian components, decades of delays in transforming hybrid regimes towards democracies. The methodological basis on which the study is based is a systematic analysis combined with an interdisciplinary approach. The application of this interdisciplinary approach shows that the mixed political regime was called a “hybrid” not by chance - it also has a heterosis effect. Autocratic leaders and parties were well aware that military regimes and personal dictatorships looked too authoritarian and could face sanctions from the international community, so they sought ways to legitimize their autocratic advantages in order to remain in power for a long time. The most effective approach for essentially authoritarian governments has been to fill the hybrid regime with the appearance of democracy, avoiding or distorting, depleting the very essence of democracy. By gaining an externally presentable democratic configuration, an authoritarian regime can pretend to respect rights and freedoms by actually cutting or obstructing their enjoyment. Hybrid regimes can be stable, long-lasting and competitive – while meeting the demands of elites and the needs of society, setting an example of social compromise. The concept of a hybrid regime still has no theoretical basis, which would make it possible to distinguish its identity and clearly distinguish it from other types of political regimes. Conclusions. The study of types of political regimes, the development of the theory of hybrid political regime and the application of interdisciplinary approach gives grounds to define hybrid regime as a separate type of political regime, more stable and durable than pure democratic and undemocratic forms due to its hybrid nature (heterotic effect) and unique national combination of democratic and authoritarian elements. Key words: political regime, democracy, authoritarianism, hybrid political regime

Introduction: the work is devoted to the study of key aspects and characteristics of models of political leadership and political regimes with their attachment to the personalities of politicians. It seems that every politician always belongs to a certain type of political leader. Under the influence of various environmental factors, as well as based on personal traits, ambitions and other personality traits, it is typical for a politician to show rationality, traditionalism or, for example, charisma in his politically oriented behavior. Accordingly, belonging to a rational, charismatic or some other type determines both the political model of leadership and the political regime itself. Objective: to investigate the relationship between the types of political leaders, the political models formed by them and political regimes. Tasks: to study the theoretical aspects of the concepts of political leader, model of political leadership and political regime; to characterize the most common types of models of political leadership and types of political regimes in the scientific political environment; to find a connection between types of political leaders, models of political leadership and types of political regimes. Methods: description, generalization, synthesis, abstraction, idealization, deduction, induction, systematization, research, comparison. Results: the definition of the terms «political leader», «model of political leadership» and «political regime» is formulated; the relationship between the types of political leaders, the political models formed by them and political regimes is found. Conclusions: in particular, it is proved that the democratic political regime, as a rule, is formed under the influence of the traditional and rational/legal type of political leaders, as well as under the influence of leaders with high legitimacy, leaders with a positive digital image and constitutional types of political leaders. The transitional/hybrid political mode is formed, as a rule, under the influence of the charismatic type of political leader. Authoritarian political regime is formed, as a rule, under the influence of totalitarian types of political leaders, leaders-bureaucrats and revisionists.

Despite its long history of multiparty rule, Turkey has failed to consolidate its democratic regime. Having experienced democratic turnover in the 1950 general elections, Turkish politics oscillated to a large extent between majoritarian rule under right-wing populist parties and military governments. Sustained by patronage politics and clientelism, this strong populist tradition triggered economic bottlenecks that proved difficult at times to address under a democratic regime. During the resulting political crises, the Turkish military acted as a guardian actor to break the deadlock by toppling popularly elected governments. Scholars of Turkish politics initially hoped that this “coup trap” would be broken by the Justice and Development Party that had formed a single-party government after the 2002 general elections. Despite such early optimism, however, the AKP rule has regressed to a competitive authoritarian regime in which the ruling party enjoys uneven access to public and private resources and the playing field is increasingly tilted against the opposition parties. Following its re-election victory in 2007, the AKP government gradually broke the tutelage of the military and judiciary, but instead of opening up the political arena, it sought to capture state institutions, redistribute public resources in a partisan way, and bring opposition actors under tighter control. In analysing changing regime dynamics over the past decade, the chapter will position the AKP rule in the larger context of Turkey’s multiparty history and discuss the possibility of reversing this trend through the opposition’s election victory. Such a victory may break Turkey’s pendulum swings between populist majoritarianism and tutelary intervention in favour of democratic consolidation.

The authors analyze the relationship between the type of political regime and the level of terrorist activity, with a particular emphasis on the so-called factional democracies. The key difference of factional democracies from other political regimes is the presence of polarization between opposing factions. It has been reported that political polarization transforms the conventional institutionalized political process into unconventional politics. The authors draw attention to the fact that in the existing scientific debate, there is no clear conclusion about the nature of the relationship between the type of political regime and the level of terrorist activity in the country. A literature review suggests that there is a curvilinear, U-shaped relationship between the level of terrorist activity and the type of political regime, which is consistent with the findings of previous works describing the relationship between socio-political destabilization and the type of political regime. Preliminary testing conducted by the authors indicates that factional democracies are subject to significantly more terrorist attacks than any other political regimes. While analyzing data on the level of terrorist activity, the authors address the need to split the sample into subsamples, due to the nonlinear nature of the relationship between the level of terrorist activity and GDP per capita, as well as the mean of years of schooling. The presence of a positive relationship between factional democracies and the level of terrorist activity is also verified by applying a negative binomial regression. The authors offer their own answer to the question of why so many previous studies have detected a positive correlation between democracy and terrorism. Attention is drawn to the fact that the positive relationship between democratic regime and the level of terrorist activity can be obtained due to the inclusion of factional democracies into the overall sample of democratic states. If factional democracies are excluded from the sample, the relationship between the level of terrorist activity and the democratic regime turns out to be clearly negative. The findings about the relationship between regime type and terrorist activity are replicated at the subsamples level. The general conclusion is that a factional democracy turns out to be a very strong positive predictor of high levels of terrorist activity, whereas a non-factional democracy turns out to be a statistically-significant predictor of the relatively lower levels of the intensity of terrorist attacks.

Following the snap general elections in 2018, Turkish voters again went to ballot-box to cast their verdict on local elections on 31 March 2019. While the electoral playing field remained heavily skewed to the benefit of the incumbent bloc as it has been during the recent rounds of electoral contestation, the opposition, for the first time, broke the winning series of the incumbent AKP and won nearly all the major metropolitan municipalities including Ankara and Istanbul. This article aims to delineate the dynamics of polarization/depolarization in a competitive authoritarian setting. Through an analysis of political and economic context and campaign discourses of main parties in recent local elections, this article argues that under a regime level cleavage, performance failure of incumbent enabled the opposition to initiate a depolarizing and inclusive campaign discourse while captivating its core constituency. Secondly, this article assesses the possible ramifications of recent electoral loss for the sustainability of competitive authoritarian regime in Turkey through an analysis of AKP’s politics of patronage and clientelism and party organization. Such an analysis demonstrates that despite its local character, the recent elections will have important ramifications for the sustainability of competitive authoritarianism in Turkey.

The article analyzes scientific approaches to studying corruption in countries with authoritarian political regimes. The relevance of this discussion is determined by both the societal significance of anti-corruption reforms in transitional countries, considering the consequences of authoritarian rule in the democratization process and the need for political elite rotation, and the search by scholars for links between certain manifestations of corruption in authoritarian regimes and the methods of exercising power in the state. The article compares widely represented methodological approaches to studying the topic in political science, specifically those proposed in the works of B. Geddes, J. R. Hollyer, L. Wantchekon, M. C. McGuire, M. Olson Jr., and other scholars. By systematizing these approaches, the authors emphasize their advantages and complementary roles. Given the multiplicity of authoritarianism variants, the article highlights the need to consider the characteristics of autocratic rule (or the type of autocracy) when interpreting the causes, manifestations, and consequences of corruption, as well as the incentives for corruption tolerated or encouraged by the state. In this context, the focus is placed on political corruption. The article holds methodological significance, with the goal of forming theoretical and methodological generalizations that can be used in future research on specific autocracies, considering the subtypes of political regimes. The authors emphasize these distinctions and caution against generalizations that might dilute the fundamental differences in corruption and anti-corruption activities in countries belonging to the same political regime type but differing significantly in the ways political elites are formed and power is exercised.

This chapter evaluates the political economy of education in Turkey under the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). The education regime does not stand on its own and must be located within the general economic, social, and political conditions within which state, capital, and class relations are constituted. Thus, an understanding of the realities behind the education regime in Turkey requires an analysis of the Turkish economy, the transformation in the form of the Turkish state, the development of capital, and the experience of class politics. This study explores the contemporary education regime under AKP rule in the context of the historical and socioeconomic and political circumstances within which it is embedded.KeywordsPolitical EconomyInternational Monetary FundSocial AssistanceSocial Security SystemImport SubstitutionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This paper examines the critical shift in geographical knowledge production under the increasingly authoritarian political regime in Turkey, particularly in the aftermath of the unsuccessful 2016 coup attempt. In this context, semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen young geographers who experienced the authoritarian shift in the political regime during their graduate studies. The narratives of the interviewees indicate that the young geographers have undergone a critical transformation with two significant aspects: firstly, they reject the traditional style of geographical knowledge production and instead embrace approaches integrated with social theory, drawing from the extensive portfolio of contemporary geography. Secondly, they approach socio-spatial phenomena in a libertarian and critical manner, distinct from the lenses of the authoritarian system. However, due to their legitimate concerns, they often refrain from presenting such research on academic platforms. In this regard, under an authoritarian regime, the critical transformation consists of two dimensions: the arena where geographical products are shared, and the underground, where geographical ‘black boxes’ are held and kept hidden from public view.

It is generally assumed that in the era of globalisation politics crosses borders at will. While the borders of some nation-states are mere speed bumps to the rapid movement of transnational capital and other commodities – including ideas – the borders of other nation-states remain less permeable. The success of transnational crossings, or the manifestations thereof, will obviously be determined by national difference (and this cannot be overstated), but also by the type of political regime which governs particular nation-states. This article seeks to redress an imbalance in the literature by seeking to understand how the politics of environmental concern have crossed into the hinterlands of two authoritarian regimes: Burma and Iran. It examines the political challenges faced under repressive regimes and investigates activists' attempts at addressing human and environmental security issues, as well as more narrow, post-materialist green agendas. Green movements under authoritarian regimes are often in the vanguard of democracy movements – clearly visible in the first flush of civil society itself – but in both Burma and Iran the prospects for this outcome are less assured, with the Iranian regime in particular using environmentalism to consolidate existing power structures.

In the context of the continual and sustainable development of social order and civil society, the comprehension of the features, signs, and criteria of a democratic political regime is transforming and necessitates reconsideration, rendering this work pertinent. The objective of this article is to delineate the substance of the array of features and characteristics inherent to a democratic political regime, contrasting them with those of an authoritarian and totalitarian political regime. Additionally, it aims to elucidate the criterion by which distinctions between various types of political regimes can be made. The present publication employs analytical, synthetic, scientific generalization, theoretical comparison, and formal logical methods. The article explicates the contentious nature of the concept of "political regime" and presents diverse scientific approaches to its comprehension. It posits that the criterion for categorizing political regimes into democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian forms hinges on "the peculiarities of interaction between civil society and the State, the degree of permeation of private life of citizens, and various spheres of the social reality of State power." The author provides a comparative analysis not only of democratic political regimes but also of authoritarian and totalitarian ones. The author conducts a detailed examination of the content associated with political science categories such as "features," "signs," and "criteria" of a political regime. Furthermore, the author introduces a personalized understanding of these concepts and offers insights into the interrelations among the terms under consideration. The article delineates an approach wherein the fundamental classification of political regimes is proposed to be nuanced. According to the author, political regimes ought to be categorized into democratic and non-democratic, with the latter further subcategorized into authoritarian and totalitarian. The author delineates the conventional features of a democratic political regime from the perspective of political science and expounds upon additional features which, in the author's estimation, might signify the presence of a democratic political regime in a given state. The assertion is made that a direct correlation between the form of government and the political regime in the state does not exist, and illustrative examples supporting this perspective are provided.

Aim: Income inequality has emerged as a significant concern within the Pakistani economy, prompting extensive investigations across various dimensions. This study aims to explore the relationship between types of political regime and income inequality, specifically in Pakistan.
 Methods: Time series data spanning from 1972 to 2019 were utilized, obtained from the World Bank, Polity IV Project, and the Handbook of Statistics on Pakistan Economy by the State Bank of Pakistan. To measure types of political regimes, the Polity index was employed, while the Gini coefficient served as the metric for income inequality. Additionally, this research considered several factors, including GDP per capita, the ratio of direct taxes to GDP, the percentage of government expenditure on education relative to GDP, and the percentage of government expenditure on community and social services relative to GDP, to control for their direct effects. The stationarity of the data was assessed using the augmented Dickey-Fuller test, while the autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model was employed to examine the cointegrating relationship among the variables in the model.
 Results: The empirical findings from the estimation demonstrate a lasting negative correlation between the types of political regimes in Pakistan and wealth disparities in the short and medium term. The results highlight the notable detrimental effect of different political regimes on the nation's economic disparity.
 Conclusion: A one percent increase in the Polity score is associated with a 0.45 percent long-term and a 0.25 percent short-term decrease in the Gini coefficient.
 Recommendation: Pakistan should strive towards a stable democratic political framework and implement sustainable economic policies to effectively address income disparity and achieve a desirable level of income distribution.

In recent years, several observers of Turkey have recognised a novel development in Turkish politics: the rise of Erdoganism. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s personality and style have come to embody the Turkish nation, the state and its economic, social and political institutions. But what is Erdoganism? What are its main attributes? Is it a mere ideology or the name of the emerging political regime in Turkey? While commentators have provided several observations of Erdoganism, it has not been duly examined on its own in the academic literature. This paper’s main premise is that in Turkey, a new political regime has emerged in recent years which can best be defined as Erdoganism. Erdoganism has four main dimensions: electoral authoritarianism as the electoral system, neopatrimonialism as the economic system, populism as the political strategy and Islamism as the political ideology. We first explain why we think Erdoganism is a better concept to define the emerging political regime in Turkey. We briefly discuss Sultanism, Khomeinism and Kemalism in order to produce a set of references for our discussion of Erdoganism. We then provide a thorough analysis, explaining the ways in which Erdoganism manifests itself through electoral authoritarianism, neopatrimonialism, populism and Islamism.

Rising income inequality is one of the major issues in the Pakistani economy. It has been investigated in different dimensions. Different cross-sectional and panel studies have extensively examined the connection between political regime types and income inequality over a specific period. The findings have displayed significant variations across countries and regions. This study delves into exploring the relationship between political regime types and income inequality, specifically in Pakistan, utilizing time series data spanning from 1972 to 2019. To measure political regime types, the Polity index is employed, while the Gini-Coefficient serves as the metric for income inequality. Additionally, this research takes into account various factors, such as GDP per capita, the ratio of direct taxes to GDP, the percentage of government expenditure on education relative to GDP, and the percentage of government expenditure on community and social services relative to GDP, in order to control for their direct effects. The stationarity of the data is assessed using the augmented Dickey-Fuller test, while the autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model is employed to examine the cointegrating relationship among the variables in the model. The empirical findings from the estimation affirm the presence of a lasting correlation between Pakistan's political regime types and wealth disparities. The findings show that different political regimes have a notable detrimental effect on the nation's economic disparity. To be more precise, a one percent increase in the Polity score is associated with a 0.45 percent long-term and a 0.25 percent short-term fall in the Gini Coefficient. This suggests that Pakistan should work toward a stable democratic political framework and put into place sustainable economic policies in order to successfully address income disparity and achieve a desirable level of income distribution