Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legitimation beyond ideology: authoritarian regimes and the construction of missions

Legitimation jenseits Ideologie. Autoritäre Regime und die Konstruktion von Missionen

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article argues that neo-authoritarian regimes – meaning those autocratic regimes that emerged after the end of the Cold War and during the fourth wave of democratisation – do not recur to ideology for legitimising their regime as totalitarian regimes in the 20th century did. Three objectives will be pursued on a conceptual level: firstly, to make a case for a narrow notion of ideology that includes the theoretical findings of classic 20th century totalitarianism research and is linked to the totalitarian subtype. Secondly, to argue that Linz’s feature of mentality is lacking discriminatory power for being an analytical category covering the legitimation basis of authoritarian regimes. And finally, thirdly, to introduce ‘mission’ as a concept that is defined as analytically different from ideology and characterises the legitimation efforts of authoritarian regimes in order to secure their persistence. An explorative analysis looks at the construction of such missions in three cases: Venezuela, Russia and China.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag argumentiert, dass neo-autoritäre Regime – damit sind jene gemeint, die nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges und während der Vierten Demokratisierungswelle entstanden – nicht auf Ideologien zurückgreifen zur Legitimierung und Bestandssicherung ihrer Herrschaft, so wie dies in Bezug auf die totalitären Regime des 20. Jahrhunderts der Fall war. Konzeptionell werden drei Ziele verfolgt: Erstens wird für einen engen Ideologiebegriff plädiert, der die theoretischen Erkenntnisse der klassischen Totalitarismusforschung des 20. Jahrhunderts aufnimmt und am Subtypus totalitärer Systeme angekoppelt ist. Zweitens wird erläutert, dass das diffuse und als analytische Kategorie schwierig zu handhabende Linz’sche Merkmal der Mentalität kein geeignetes Konzept ist, um die Legitimationsgrundlage autoritärer Regime zu erfassen. Drittens, wird Mission als Begriff und Konzept eingeführt, das in analytischer Differenz zu Ideologie definiert wird und die Legitimationsbestrebungen autoritärer Regime kennzeichnet. Die explorative Analyse betrachtet die Konstruktionen solcher Missionen an drei Beispielen: Venezuela, Russland und China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is particularly true for US research, which is heavily institution-oriented; between 2001 and 2007, just 0.3% of presentations at APSA annual meetings dealt with the issue of legitimacy (Gilley 2009, p. xii). In the German-speaking world, meanwhile, several conceptually advanced models have been put forward (Gerschewski 2013; Gerschewski et al. 2013; Kailitz 2013; Kailitz and Köllner (2013); for the international dimension see Holbig 2010; Kneuer 2013).

  2. Previously used by Hans Kelsen (2009 [1925]) and introduced to post-war political science by Karl Loewenstein (1935).

  3. One of the few exceptions is Gerschewski (2013).

  4. A detailed discussion on the notion of ideology and such imprecisions is provided by John Gerring (1997).

  5. Not all cases of (re)autocratisation can be covered with these categories, but such a classification is still helpful for an initial overview.

  6. As this is explored at length in the introduction of this volume, a detailed derivation will be omitted in this article.

  7. What is interesting is the “rediscovery” of the notion of ideocracy (see Backes and Kailitz 2014). All the same, as long as ideology is used in the narrow sense set out above, no further term is necessary to cover the phenomenon of legitimation qua ideology (i. e. in totalitarian regimes). Rather, a term is needed for those cases of legitimation in non-totalitarian regimes.

  8. One of the few exceptions is Lambach and Göbel, who argue that a focus on structural features in the relationship between rulers and governed omits essential facets of legitimation strategies. They emphasise discursive power, through which “regime-compatible messages [are conveyed] with the aim of engendering corresponding attitudes” (Lambach and Göbel 2010, p. 86).

  9. The presence of digital media has expanded the opportunities for autocrats to communicate directly with citizens (through blogs, chats, Twitter etc.). Authoritarian deliberation, as authors such as He and Warren (2011) show using the example of China, therefore plays an increasing role even over social media (see Noesselt 2013). How this should be classified in terms of input legitimation is, for the time being, yet to be explored.

  10. It is interesting that despite the Bolívarian Revolution being highly personalised by the charismatic figure of Chávez, the system did not promptly collapse after his death in 2013.

  11. Here Chávez draws on Bolívar’s most notable writings and speeches, although interpreted in his own way (Kresse 2015), sometimes completely incorrectly (Moser 2010).

  12. This is the case with the major energy corporations Rosneft and Sibneft, but also in aerospace, automotive and heavy industries.

  13. See Laqueur (2015), pp. 118–131 for details.

  14. This does not contradict interpretations that see an ideological self-assurance in these concepts, if we interpret drawing on existing Marxist, socialist or Maoist values as an attempt to justify the existence of the Leninist party while at the same time making no less use of other legitimation patterns such as borrowing from traditional Chinese culture, patriotic values and the national spirit (Holbig 2007, 2013; Noesselt 2015). The difference can be explained by recourse to a narrow or broad definition of ideology. There is consensus that ideational thought and value systems have been heavily instrumentalised in China, particularly recently.

  15. Between 2003 and 2013, China completed five successful manned space flights besides managing to shoot down an old satellite, test an anti-ballistic missile and develop an aircraft carrier as well as a stealth plane. With regard to space flight, China is looking to distinguish itself in an area where the USA has had its activities scaled back for some time.

  16. Unlike the “American Dream”, which is associated with personal success on the basis of individual efforts, the “Chinese Dream” is geared toward patriotism and emphasises the collective (Fasulo 2015, p. 18)

  17. It should be mentioned here that the use of repressive measures can also increase in such situations. This correlation between legitimation and repression requires further analysis.

References

  • Alvarez, Angel E. 2013. Venezuela: Political governance and regime change. In Constructing democratic governance in Latin America, ed. I. Jorge, Domínguez, and Michael Shifter, 316–339. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1957. Elemente totaler Herrschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backes, Uwe, and Steffen Kailitz. 2014. Ideokratien im Vergleich. Legitimation – Kooptation – Repression. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Rodney. 2001. Legitimising identities. The self-presentation of rulers and subjects. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Christian. 2011. Die Shanghaier Organisation für Zusammenarbeit. Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Kooperation autoritärer politischer Systeme. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, David. 2013. The legitimation of power. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennets, Marc. 2015. Russlands „heiliger Krieg“ Wie die russische-orthodoxe Kirche politische Deutungshoheit beansprucht. http://www.ipg-journal.de/schwerpunkt-des-monats/religion-und-politik/artikel/detail/russlands-heiliger-krieg-1197/ Accessed 07. Februar 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeckh, Andreas. 2005. Die Außenpolitik Venezuelas: Von einer ‚Chaosmacht‘ zur regional Mittelmacht und zurück. In Venezuela unter Chávez – Aufbruch oder Niedergang?, ed. Oliver Diehl, Wolfgang Muno, 85–99. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1983. Demokratie und Ideologie im Zeitalter der Machtergreifungen. Vierteljahreschrift für Zeitgeschichte 1:1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, Paul. 2000. Non-democratic regimes. Theory, government and politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, Peter J. 2011. Promoting democracy abroad: Policy and performance. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannady, Sean, and Paul Kubicek. 2014. Nationalism and legitimation for authoritarianism: A comparison of Nicholas I and Vladimir Putin. Journal of Eurasian Studies 1:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Weiss, Jessica. 2014. Powerful patriots. Nationalist protests in China’s foreign policy relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Chen. 2011. Authoritarian Capitalism in Post-Communist Russia and China: Regime Ideology-Building in Comparative Perspective. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chávez, Hugo. 1991. Libro Azul, Caracas. http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/politica/descarga-libro-azul-hugo-Ch%C3%A1vez-pdf/ Accessed 07. Juli 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chávez, Hugo. 2005. Understanding the Venezuelan revolution. Hugo Chávez talks to Marta Harnecker. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chávez, Hugo. 2007. Entramos a una nueva era: el Proyecto Nacional Simón Bolívar. http://www.formacion.psuv.org.ve/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/CHAVEZ_PROYECTO_SIMON_BOLIVAR.pdf Accessed 07. Juli 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellner, Steve. 2008. Rethinking Venezuelan politics: Class, conflict and the Chávez phenomenon. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasulo, Filippo. 2015. Xi’s domestic bet: Deng or Gorbachev? In Xi’s policy gambles: The bumpy road ahead, ed. Alessia Amighini, Axel Berkovsky, 13–31. Milano: Novi Ligure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finer, Samuel E. 1976. The man of horseback: The role of military in politics. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, M. Steve. 1998. Moving backwards: The dynamics of democractic erosion and reversal in the postcommunist world. Oakland: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, Carl J. 1957. Totalitäre Diktatur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gat, Azar. 2007. The return of authoritarian great powers. Foreign Affairs 2007(July/August):59–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gel’man, Vladimir. 2015. Authoritarian Russia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 1997. Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly 4:957–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschewski, Johannes. 2013. The three pillars of stability. Legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes? Democratization 1:13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschewski, Johannes, Wolfgang Merkel, Alexander Schmotz, Christoph H. Stefes, and Dag Tanneberg. 2013. Warum überleben Diktaturen? In Autokratien im Vergleich, ed. Steffen Kailitz, Patrick Köllner, 106–132. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, Bruce. 2009. The right to rule. How states win and lose legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1976. Legitimationsprobleme im modernen Staat. In Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme PVS-Sonderheft, Vol. 7, ed. Graf Peter Kielmansegg, 39–61. Opladen: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halbach, Uwe. 2014. Russland im Wertekampf gegen ‘den Westen’. Propagandistische und ideologische Aufrüstung in der Ukraine-Krise. SWP-Aktuell, Vol. 43, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Kirk A. 2010. Who mobilizes? Participatory democracy in Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution. Latin American Politics and Society 52:31–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. Authoritarian deliberation. The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics June:269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbig, Heike. 2007. Sinisierung der Demokratie: Chinas Parteiführung setzt auf eigene Wege. GIGA Focus 12:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbig, Heike. 2010. Die Globale Finanzkrise in China. Nationale und Internationale Dimensionen der Legitimität autoritärer Herrschaft. In Autoritarismus Reloaded. Neuere Ansätze und Erkenntnisse der Autokratieforschung, ed. Holger Albrecht, Rolf Frankenberger, 227–249. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holbig, Heike. 2013. Ideology after the end of ideology. China and the quest for autocratic legitimation. Democratization 1:61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbig, Heike, Günter Schucher, and Margot Schuller. 2008. One World, Different Games‘: Chinas Aufstieg und die Olympischen Spiele in Bejing. GIGA Focus 8:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. New York: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kailitz, Steffen. 2013. Classifying political regimes revisited: Legitimation and durability. Democratization 20(1):38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kailitz, Steffen, and Patrick Köllner. 2013. Zur Autokratieforschung der Gegenwart: Klassifikatorische Vorschläge, theoretische Ansätze und analytische Dimensionen. In Autokratien im Vergleich, ed. Steffen Kailitz, Patrick Köllner, 9–35. Baden-Baden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, Hans. 2009. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf Kielmansegg, Peter. 1971. Legitimität als analytische Kategorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 12(3):367–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Margarete. 2012. Russlands Westpolitik unter Putin 3.0. http://www.swp-berlin.org/publikationen/kurz-gesagt/russlands-westpolitik-unter-putin-30.html Accessed 17. Oktober 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne. 2013. Auf der Suche nach Legitimität. Außenpolitik als Legitimationsstrategie autokratischer Regime. In Autokratien im Vergleich PVS-Sonderheft, Vol. 2013, ed. Steffen Kailitz, Patrick Köllner, 205–236. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne, and Thomas Demmelhuber. 2015. Gravity centers of authoritarian rule: A conceptual approach. Democratization 23(5):775–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne, Thoams Demmelhuber, Raphael Peresson and Tobias Zumbrägel. 2016. Authoritarian Gravity Centres: Exploiting Regional Organizations as Transmission Belts and Learning Rooms. Paper presented at the ECPR Genreal Conference September 7–10, 2016.

  • Kresse, Michael. 2015. Hugo Chávez. Eine ideengeschichtliche und historische Analyse. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambach, Daniel, and Christian Göbel. 2010. Die Responsivität autoritärer Regime. In Autoritarismus Reloaded, ed. Holger Albrecht, Rolf Frankenberger, 79–92. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lampton, David. 2014a. Following the Leader. Ruling China: From Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping. Oakland: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampton, David. 2014b. How China is ruled. Why It’s getting harder for Bejing to govern. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2013-12-06/how-china-ruled (Created Jan.). Accessed 15. Oktober 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laqueur, Walter. 2015. Putinismus. Wohin treibt Russland? Berlin: Propyläen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laruelle, and Marlène. 2009. In the name of the nation. Nationalism and politics in comtemporary Russia. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, Juan J. 1975. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. In Macropolitical theory Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 3, ed. Fred I. Greenstein, Nelson W. Polsby, 175–411. Boston: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, K. 1935. “autocracy versus democracy in contemporary Europe, I.”. American Political Science Review 29(04):571–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, Maya Margarita. 2011. Venezuela: Hugo Chávez and the Populist Left. In he Resurgence of the Latin American Left, ed. Steven Levistky, M. Roberts Kenneth, 213–239. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarquhar, and Roderick. 2013. China in transition. S.T. Lee distinguished annual lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmjEre5Z1X0 (Created 17 Jan 2013). Accessed 28. November 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, Scott Pérez-Liñán, and Anibál Pérez-Liñán. 2015. Cross-Currents in Latin America. Journal of Democracy 26(1):114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makarychev, Andrey. 2013. The politics of sports mega-events in Russia: Kazan, Sochi, and beyond. http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/politics-sports-mega-events-russia-kazan-sochi-and-beyond (Created September 2013). Accessed 18. November 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFaul, Michael, and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss. 2008. The myth of the authoritarian model: How Putin’s crackdown holds Russia back. Foreign Affairs 1:68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, Wolfgang. 2010. Systemtransformation. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, Wolfgang, and Aurel Croissant. 2000. Formale und informale Institutionen in defekten Demokratien. PVS 1:3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minzner, Carl. 2015. China after the reform era. Journal of Democracy 26(3):129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mommsen, Margareta, and Angelika Nussberger. 2007. Das System Putin. Gelenkte Demokratie und politische Justiz in Russland. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, Teresa Maria. 2010. Das Gedankengut von Simón Bolívar und seine Instrumentalisierung durch Hugo Chávez. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, Andrew J. 2003. Authoritarian resilience. Journal of Democracy 14(1):6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, Andrew J., and Andrew Scobell. 2012. China’s Search for Security. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nodia, Ghia. 2009. The Wounds of lost Empire. Journal of Democracy 20(2):34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noesselt, Nele. 2012. Governance-Formen in China. Theorie und Praxis des chinesischen Modells. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Noesselt, Nele. 2013. Das Internet in China: Public Sphere oder autokratisches Kontrollinstrument? In Internet: Stressfaktor oder Bereicherung für die Demokratie?, ed. Marianne Kneuer, 248–275. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Noesselt, Nele. 2015. Marxismus auf Chinesisch. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 9.3.2015:6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, Marina. 2010. Ideological challenges to democracy: do they exist? In New Challenges to Democratization, ed. Peter Burnell, Richard Youngs, 42–59. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putin, Wladimir. 1999. Russia at the Turn of the Millenium. http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Putin.htm Accessed 07. Juli 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, Fritz W. 1999. Regieren in Europa. Effektiv und demokratisch? Frankfurt/New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, Fritz W. 2004. Legitimationskonzepte jenseits des Nationalstaats. http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp04-6/wp04-6.html Accessed 7. Juli 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, Fritz W. 2009. Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity. http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp09-1.pdf Accessed 7. Juli 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, Hans-Henning. 2008. Ein kurzer, siegreicher Krieg ….Russische Sichtweisen der Kaukasus-Krise. In Die Kaukasus-Krise. Internationale Perzeptionen und Konsequenzen für deutsche und europäische Politik SWP-Studien, Vol. S 25, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, Hans-Henning. 2012. Nach der Russland-Wahl: Putin und Heraklit. http://www.swp-berlin.org/publikationen/kurz-gesagt/nach-der-russland-wahl-putin-und-heraklit.html Accessed 17. Oktober 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ševcova, Lilia. 2015. Russia’s Political System: Imperialism and Decay. Journal of Democracy 26(1):171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ševcova, Lilia. 2005. God 2005: Logika otkata. In Nezavisimaja gazeta, 21.01.2015 und 25.01.2015; zit. n. Bornsdorf, Falk. 2005. Die Entzauberung des Präsidenten. SWP-Zeitschriftenschau 8.

  • Stykow, Petra. 2014. Russland. In Politische Systeme im Vergleich, Formale und informelle Institutionen im politischen Prozess, ed. Hans-Joachim Lauth, 303–335. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, Heinrich. 2015. Putin, der Putinismus und Europa. www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/sonstiges/Putinismus_Vogel_SV_2015_01.pdf+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, Gudrun. 2015. The Irreversible Rise: A New Foreign Policy for a Stronger China. In Xi’s Policy Gambles: The Bumpy Road Ahead, ed. Alleasia Amighini, Axel Berkovsky, 65–79. Milano: Novi Ligure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, and Yiwei. 2015. China’ ‘new silk roads’. A case study in EU-China relations. In Xi’s policy gambles: The bumpy road ahead, ed. Alleasia Amighini, Axel Berkovsky, 93–111. Milano: Novi Ligure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilpert, Gregory. 2007. Changing Venzuela by taking power. The history and policies of the Chávez government. London/New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Bill. 2014. Ruling Russia. Authoritarianism from the Revolution to Putin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professorin für Politikwissenschaft, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Universität Hildesheim, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141, Hildesheim, Germany

    Marianne Kneuer

Authors
  1. Marianne Kneuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Kneuer.

Additional information

A previous version of this paper has been presented and discussed with colleagues from the German Institute of Global Area Studies (GIGA) Hamburg during my stay as guest researcher in 2016. I thank the IDCAR colleagues and especially André Bank, Bert Hoffmann, Heike Holbig and Thomas Richter for their thoughtful comments. Likewise, I thank Raphael Peresson and Katya Wagner for their feedback on the empirical parts. Finally, this paper benefitted from the exchange with the guest publishers and the constructive reviewers’ input.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kneuer, M. Legitimation beyond ideology: authoritarian regimes and the construction of missions. Z Vgl Polit Wiss 11, 181–211 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-017-0335-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-017-0335-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation