Civil Associations and Political Regime in Global Non-Democratic Practice:
Between Political Control and Social Efficiency

Bederson V.D.,

Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Researcher at the Center for Comparative History and Politics, Perm State University,

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.02.04
For citation:

Bederson V.D. Civil Associations and Political Regime in Global Non-Democratic Practice: Between Political Control and Social Efficiency. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 2. P. 37-52. (In Russ.).

The study is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project №18-311-00075 “Socially


Regarding the balance between political control over civic associations and their social effectiveness (in using the functions of supporting the population and providing social services in undemocratic political regimes), this article aims to summarize and systematize the scientific literature and scientific discussion of this problem. The key theoretical and methodological directions and problems of civil society research in autocracies are considered. It is noted that empirical studies have accumulated considerable material analysing the specific mechanisms authoritarian regimes use to influence civil associations with a view to maintaining political control and ensuring social functions (cooptation, organizational and legal control, organizational and political control, quasi-non-governmental organizations), as well as into why civil associations are involved in supporting an authoritarian political order (access to limited resources, access to bureaucratic infrastructure, the possibility of consulting the authorities, the possibility of the manifestation of the rights of the target group). Studies on materials of Mozambique, Algeria, Ethiopia, Syria, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Jordan, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, etc, mainly carried out over the last 10 years, are analyzed. The problem that, in spite of considerable empirical material, non-democracies have not yet formulated a stable explanatory model or middle-level theory that would become conventional for these studies is discussed. Detailed consideration is given to how scientific literature answers the questions: why do authoritarian regimes need independent civil associations that can become triggers for democratization and/or political reforms; and for what reasons do independent associations participate in supporting authoritarian stability, despite the fact that the regime seeks to limiting independent civil activity? In conclusion, ideas are advanced on promising directions both in the theoretical-methodological and empirical development of studies of the dynamics of relations between authoritarian regimes and civil society institutions. 

civil society, civic associations, NGO, political regime, authoritarianism.


Abdel-Samad M. 2017. Legislative Advocacy Under Competitive Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Civil Society in Jordan. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 1035-1053.

Bing N.C. 2012. Civil Society with Chinese Characteristics? An Examination of China’s Urban Homeowners’ Committees and Movements. – Problems of Post-Communism. Vol. 59. No. 6. P. 50-63.

Bratton M. 1989. Beyond the State: Civil Society and Associational Life in Africa. – World Politics. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 407-430.

Burch S. 2000. Transcending Revolutions: The Tsars, the Soviets and Deaf Culture. – Journal of Social History. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 389-401.

Cheskin A., March L. 2015. State-Society Relations in Contemporary Russia: New Forms of Political and Social Contention. – East European Politics. Vol. 31. No. 3. Р. 261-273.

Dupuy K.E., Ron J., Prakash A. 2015. Who Survived? Ethiopia’s Regulatory Crackdown on Foreign-Funded NGOs. – Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 419-456.

Fowler A. 1991. The Role of NGOs in Changing State‐Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa. – Development Policy Review. Vol. 9. No. 1. Р. 53-84.

Fox J. 1996. How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico. – World Development. Vol. 24. No. 6. Р. 1089-1103.

Gandhi J., Przeworski A. 2006. Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion Under Dictatorships. – Economics & Politics. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 1-26.

Geddes B. 2004. Minimum-Winning Coalitions and Personalization in Authoritarian Regimes. – Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association. URL: (accessed 10.01.2020).

Geddes B. 2005. Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes? – Revised Version of a Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. URL: (accessed 05.06.2017).

Gerschewski J. 2013. The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. – Democratization. Vol. 20. No. 1. Р. 13-38.

Giersdorf S., Croissant A. 2011. Civil Society and Competitive Authoritarianism in Malaysia. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 1-21.

Gilbert L. 2016. Crowding Out Civil Society: State Management of Social Organisations in Putin’s Russia. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 68. No. 9. P. 1553-1578.

He B., Thogersen S. 2010. Giving the People a Voice? Experiments with Consultative Authoritarian Institutions in China. – Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 19. No. 66. P. 675-692.

He B., Warren M.E. 2011. Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. – Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 269-289.

Heurlin C. 2010. Governing Civil Society: The Political Logic of NGO–State Relations Under Dictatorship. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 220-239.

Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. 2013. Ed. by S. Heydemann, R. Leenders. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hsu C. 2010. Beyond Civil Society: An Organizational Perspective on State–NGO Relations in the People’s Republic of China. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 259-277.

Huang V.G. 2018. Floating Control: Examining Factors Affecting the Management of the Civil Society Sector in Authoritarian China. – Social Movement Studies. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 1-15.

Ilkhamov A. 2005. The Thorny Path of Civil Society in Uzbekistan. – Central Asian Survey. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 297-317.

Kawakibi S. 2013. The Paradox of Government-Organized Civil Activism in Syria. – Civil society in Syria and Iran: Activism in Authoritarian Contexts. Ed. by P. Aarts, F. Cavatorta. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. P. 169-187.

Lagerkvist J. 2015. The Unknown Terrain of Social Protests in China: ‘Exit’, ‘Voice’, ‘Loyalty’, and ‘Shadow’. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 137-153.

Levitsky S., Way L.A. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis D. 2013. Civil Society and the Authoritarian State: Cooperation, Contestation and Discourse. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 325-340.

Lorch J., Bunk B. 2017. Using Civil Society as an Authoritarian Legitimation Strategy: Algeria and Mozambique in Comparative Perspective. – Democratization. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 987-1005.

Magaloni B. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richter J., Hatch W.F. 2013. Organizing Civil Society in Russia and China: A Comparative Approach. – International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 323-347.

Roniger L. 1994. Civil Society, Patronage and Democracy. – International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 35. No. 3. Р. 207-220.

Schedler A. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Elections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Skokova Y., Pape U., Krasnopolskaya I. 2018. The Non-Profit Sector in Today’s Russia: Between Confrontation and Co-optation. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 70. No. 4. P. 1-33.

Spires A.J. 2011a. Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs. – American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 117. No. 1. P. 1-45.

Spires A.J. 2011b. Organizational Homophily in International Grantmaking: US-Based Foundations and Their Grantees in China. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 305-331.

Truex R. 2017. Consultative Authoritarianism and Its Limits. – Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 329-361.

Tysiachniouk M., Tulaeva S., Henry L.A. 2018. Civil Society Under the Law ‘On Foreign Agents’: NGO Strategies and Network Transformation. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 70. No. 4. P. 615-637.

Wells-Dang A. 2010. Political Space in Vietnam: a View from the ‘Rice-Roots’. – The Pacific Review. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 93-112.

Wischermann J., Bunk B., Kollner P., Lorch J. 2018. Do Associations Support Authoritarian Rule? Evidence from Algeria, Mozambique, and Vietnam. – Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 95-115.

Wu F. 2013. Environmental Activism in Provincial China. – Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 89-108.

Yu Z. 2016. The Effects of Resources, Political Opportunities and Organisational Ecology on the Growth Trajectories of AIDS NGOs in China. – VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 2252-2273.

Zhang X., Baum R. 2004. Civil Society and the Anatomy of a Rural NGO. – The China Journal. Vol. 52. P. 97-107.

Ziegler C.E. 2010. Civil Society, Political Stability, and State Power in Central Asia: Cooperation and Contestation. – Democratization. Vol. 17. No. 5. P. 795-825.


Egorov G.V., Sonin K.I. 2008. Dictators and Viziers: The Economic Theory of Loyalty and Competence. – Social Sciences and Modernity. No. 2. P. 36-51. (In Russ.)

Haritonova O.G. 2012. Non-Democratic Political Regimes. – Political Science. No. 3. P. 9-30. (In Russ.)

Hoffmann S.-L. 2017. Sotsial’noe obshchenie i demokratiya. Assotsiatsii i grazhdanskoe obshchestvo v transnatsional’noi perspektive, 1750-1914 [Social Communication and Democracy. Association and Civil Society in a Transnational Perspective, 1750-1914]. Moscow: New Literary Observer. (In Russ.)

Last-Okar E. 2016. Vybory v avtoritarnykh rezhimakh: uroki Iordanii [Elections in Authoritarian Regimes: Lessons from Jordan]. – Patron-klientskie otnosheniya v istorii i sovremennosti: khrestomatiya [Patron-Client Relations in History and Modernity]. Moscow: ROSSPEN Press. P. 280-305. (In Russ.)

Olson M. 2010. Dictatorship, Democracy and Development. – Economic Policy. No. 1. P. 167-183. (In Russ.)

Semenov A.V., Bederson V.D. 2017. Organizational Reactions of Russian NGOs to Legislative Changes in 2012. – Journal of Economic Sociology. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 11-41. (In Russ.)

Shkel S.N. 2013. New Wave: Authoritarianism’s Multiformity in Reflection of Modern Political Science. – PolitBook. No. 4. P. 120-139. (In Russ.)

Tarasenko A., Kulmala M. 2015. Veteranskie organizatsii kak zainteresovannye gruppy: vozmozhnosti i ogranicheniya klientelizma dlya zashchity sotsial’nykh prav v regionakh Rossii [Veteran Organizations As Interested Groups: Opportunities and Limitations of Clientelism for the Protection of Social Rights in the Regions of Russia]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: (accessed 10.01.2020).

Tarasenko A.V. 2010. Mezhdu obshchestvennym sprosom i finansovoi podderzhkoi antreprenerov: razvitie nekommercheskogo sektora v sravnitel’noi perspektive [Between Public Demand and Financial Support of Entrepreneurs: the Development of the Non-Profit Sector in a Comparative Perspective]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: (accessed 12.05.2018).

Tarasenko A.V. 2014. Kontsepty tret’ego sektora i grazhdanskogo obshchestva v kontekste teorii demokratii, upravleniya i ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Concepts of the Third Sector and Civil Society in the Context of Theories of Democracy, Governance and Economic Development]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.) URL: (accessed 12.05.2018).

Zavadskaya M.A. 2014. Electoral Cycles into Competitive Authoritarian Regimes. – Review of Political Science. No. 3. P. 5-21. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 2, 2020

See also:

Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Avdonin V.S., Sergeyev S.A., Chernikova V.V., Sidenko O.A., Sokolov A.V., Evdokimov N.A., Tupaev A.V., Slatinov V.B., Zhukov I.K., Kozlova N.N., Rassadin S.V., Chugrov S.V.,
Regional political processes: how «subjective» are subjects of the RF. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5

Glukhova A.V.,
Demand for civil virtue. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5

Matsiyevsky Yu.V.,
Transformations of the political regime in Ukraine before and after the «Orange revolution»: institutional interpretation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No5

Kochetkov A.P.,
Netocratism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4

Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Smirnov V.V., Popova O.V., Smorgunov L.V., Shashkova Ja.Ju., Baranov N.A., Karabushchenko P.L.,
Where will Russia go? New opportunities and restrictions of modern development. Part II. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2



   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991