Reassessing Cambodia's Patronage System(s) and the End of Competitive Authoritarianism: Electoral Clientelism in the Shadow of Coercion

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Pacific Affairs Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.5509/2020933497
Neil Loughlin
{"title":"Reassessing Cambodia's Patronage System(s) and the End of Competitive Authoritarianism: Electoral Clientelism in the Shadow of Coercion","authors":"Neil Loughlin","doi":"10.5509/2020933497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dominant literature on Cambodian politics over the past two decades suggested that a mixture of elite and mass clientelism had enabled the hegemonic Cambodian People's Party (CPP) to rule via competitive but authoritarian elections, while lessening its previous reliance on repression\n and violence. Such explanations did not predict the upswing in contestation in the country in 2013 and thereafter. Neither do they account for the crackdown that followed. Following literature that draws attention to the tensions in building and maintaining political coalitions under authoritarianism,\n and demonstrating the difficulties in maintaining competitive authoritarianism over time, this article draws attention to structural, institutional, and distributional impediments to the CPP leadership in building and maintaining effective reciprocal relations with electoral clients while\n simultaneously balancing the interests of the military and other elites at the core of the regime. To make its argument, the article compares weaknesses in the CPP's electoral clientelism with the effectiveness of patronage within the security forces, seen through the lens of Cambodia's experience\n of land dispossession. It shows that an extractive and exclusive political economy privileged the interests of regime insiders over potential mass electoral clients precisely during the same period the CPP was supposed to be securing its hold on power via mass electoral clientelism. This further\n explains why the regime fell back on repression over reform in response to the upswing in contestation manifest from 2013, and why, despite the failings of its mass patronage project, repression has nevertheless been successful as a strategy for regime survival during a period of heightened\n popular contestation.","PeriodicalId":47041,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Affairs","volume":"93 1","pages":"497-518"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5509/2020933497","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

The dominant literature on Cambodian politics over the past two decades suggested that a mixture of elite and mass clientelism had enabled the hegemonic Cambodian People's Party (CPP) to rule via competitive but authoritarian elections, while lessening its previous reliance on repression and violence. Such explanations did not predict the upswing in contestation in the country in 2013 and thereafter. Neither do they account for the crackdown that followed. Following literature that draws attention to the tensions in building and maintaining political coalitions under authoritarianism, and demonstrating the difficulties in maintaining competitive authoritarianism over time, this article draws attention to structural, institutional, and distributional impediments to the CPP leadership in building and maintaining effective reciprocal relations with electoral clients while simultaneously balancing the interests of the military and other elites at the core of the regime. To make its argument, the article compares weaknesses in the CPP's electoral clientelism with the effectiveness of patronage within the security forces, seen through the lens of Cambodia's experience of land dispossession. It shows that an extractive and exclusive political economy privileged the interests of regime insiders over potential mass electoral clients precisely during the same period the CPP was supposed to be securing its hold on power via mass electoral clientelism. This further explains why the regime fell back on repression over reform in response to the upswing in contestation manifest from 2013, and why, despite the failings of its mass patronage project, repression has nevertheless been successful as a strategy for regime survival during a period of heightened popular contestation.
重新评估柬埔寨的赞助制度和竞争威权主义的终结:高压阴影下的选举庇护主义
在过去的二十年里,关于柬埔寨政治的主流文献表明,精英和大众裙带主义的混合使得柬埔寨人民党(CPP)能够通过竞争但专制的选举来统治,同时减少了它以前对镇压和暴力的依赖。这样的解释并没有预测到2013年及之后该国竞选活动的上升。他们也没有解释随后的镇压。在关注威权主义下建立和维持政治联盟的紧张关系,并展示随着时间的推移维持竞争性威权主义的困难的文献之后,本文提请注意结构性,制度性,在与选举客户建立和维持有效互惠关系的同时,又要平衡军方和政权核心其他精英的利益,这对菲共领导层来说是一种分配障碍。为了证明自己的观点,文章通过柬埔寨土地被剥夺的经历,将柬埔寨人民党在选举中庇护主义的弱点与安全部队内部庇护的有效性进行了比较。它表明,一种榨取性和排他性的政治经济使政权内部人士的利益凌驾于潜在的群众选举客户之上,而恰恰在同一时期,CPP本应通过群众选举的庇护主义来确保其对权力的控制。这进一步解释了为什么该政权在应对2013年以来的争议上升时,依靠镇压而不是改革,以及为什么尽管其大规模赞助项目失败了,但在公众争议加剧的时期,镇压作为一种政权生存策略仍然是成功的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pacific Affairs
Pacific Affairs AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Pacific Affairs has, over the years, celebrated and fostered a community of scholars and people active in the life of Asia and the Pacific. It has published scholarly articles of contemporary significance on Asia and the Pacific since 1928. Its initial incarnation from 1926 to 1928 was as a newsletter for the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), but since May 1928, it has been published continuously as a quarterly under the same name. The IPR was a collaborative organization established in 1925 by leaders from several YMCA branches in the Asia Pacific, to “study the conditions of the Pacific people with a view to the improvement of their mutual relations.”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信