Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), University of Dayton, 2024, Theology

This dissertation develops an insight of Italian historian, Gabriele De Rosa, that Don Luigi Sturzo, Italian priest-politician and leader of Christian Democracy during the interwar period, developed a form of religious intransigence that deviated from the generally accepted norms of ultramontane Catholics and provided the principles for the practical activities of a mass party representing Italian Christian Democracy (1919-1924). I press on De Rosa's insight to show that Sturzo's “historicizing” of intransigence gave him a method of Catholic antifascism (1924-1946) that in exile found a friendly reception in Britain and the United States. Sturzo named his method popolarismo, or popularism. Through it he aimed to maintain the hard stance of the Catholic faithful on anticlericalism while at the same time conditioning religious intransigence into a friendlier debate with modernity through Catholic social teaching. I investigate De Rosa's briefly stated interpretation during the time of Sturzo's party-building but develop it further by looking at Sturzo's relationships in an exile milieu. Between 1924 and 1946, Sturzo employed his method, a combination of astute historical analysis with a firm belief that Catholic Social teaching had opened a door for the Church's entrance into modernity, inside a transnational antifascist discourse conducted in correspondence, conferences, and the international press. He and his closest associates used his popularist vision to craft arguments that generally favored Wilsonian internationalism while rejecting all forms of authoritarianism, even those that were Catholic. He reminded readers that while culture and politics were not the same thing, the Church's moral teaching ought to have at least an inspired authority in politics because it possessed this in culture. He persisted in this argument despite the Vatican's lean toward authoritarian governments that assured a more abundant ecclesial influence over statecraft than what was as (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: William Portier (Advisor); Vince J. Miller (Committee Member); Jana M. Bennett (Other); Sandra A. Yocum (Committee Member); Massimo Faggioli (Committee Member); Anthony B. Smith (Committee Member) Subjects: History; Theology

Master of Arts, The Ohio State University, 1969, Graduate School

Committee: Not Provided (Other) Subjects:

Master of Arts, The Ohio State University, 1962, Graduate School

Committee: Not Provided (Other) Subjects:

Master of Arts (MA), Wright State University, 2021, International and Comparative Politics

This study identifies three tactics authoritarian leaders use to attempt to effectively coerce their citizens without losing power: 1) performance legitimacy, 2) nationalist legitimacy, and 3) institutional legitimacy. To demonstrate these tactics of what I call “coercive effectiveness,” the author employs a most-different-systems analysis on the regimes of Xi Jinping (2012 2015) and Bashar al-Assad (2000-2004). The author finds that coercion is more likely to be effective under the following conditions: 1) when leaders use economic performance and institutionalist strategies rather than nationalist tactics, 2) when an authoritarian leader climbs the ladder to power rather than inheriting leadership and 3) when a regime is structured around the party rather than those centered on an individual leader. These findings allow policy makers to make more informed decisions for interacting with leaders. For example, the more that a regime centralizes its power, the more likely they will lose their grip on coercion by making themselves the sole target for blame.

Committee: Laura Luehrmann Ph.D. (Advisor); Pramod Kantha Ph.D. (Committee Member); Vaughn Shannon Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Comparative; International Relations; Middle Eastern History; Political Science

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2021, Political Science

Past literature in democratization, nationalism, and autocratic regime maintenance illustrate how education invites both risk and reward for autocratic states. Education is simultaneously linked with pro-democratic attitudes, political disengagement, and autocratic failure. At the same time, autocrats are predicted to be hesitant towards investing in disenfranchised populations. However, education has also been found to bolster national loyalty and identity, human capital, and long-term development. Nor is the real-world variation clear, autocratic states display significant variation in educational investment and attainment in addition to varied relationships between education and political outcomes. I argue that education can sustain or compromise autocratic stability depending on two factors: the ethnic composition of the state and the extent to which the state uses propaganda in schools. Education does not have a uniform effect. Education will not instill similarly pro-democratic attitudes or identity affiliations across a diverse population, even if the education “treatment” is constant. At the state level, similar educational policies and initiatives across autocratic states can have opposite outcomes, jeopardizing or strengthening autocratic stability. Similarly, at the individual level, increased education can lead to individuals becoming more or less attached to the national identity. My dissertation presents three papers to investigate the factors leading to differences in this real-world variation.

Committee: Jan Pierskalla PhD (Committee Chair); Amanda Robinson PhD (Committee Member); Sara Watson PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Economics; Education; Education Policy; Political Science

Master of Arts, Miami University, 2019, History

This thesis explores the phenomena of nation branding, an informal political institution of national reputation and its usefulness to authoritarian countries, specifically Singapore and China. It discovers that branding has been a vital part of the enduring stability of authoritarian regimes by pacifying the populace against greater calls for democratization. Singapore and China both had to contend with and use history in their respective branding projects in order to continually hold power internally against an international pressure toward more democratic government throughout the world.

Committee: Yihong Pan Dr. (Advisor); Stephen Norris Dr. (Advisor); Ann Wainscott Dr. (Advisor) Subjects: History

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2018, Communication

In this dissertation, I offer a social-psychological approach to analyzing the experience of individuals' judgment and decision-making processes about their engagement in low-cost but high risk online political behaviors. Drawing on social norms and risk judgment and decision-making frameworks, I propose a theoretical model to address citizens' experiences with networked authoritarianism in the context of online political expression. Online surveys conducted in two networked authoritarian contexts provide empirical evidence to test the proposed theoretical model in two separate studies. My findings suggest that how individuals feel about online political expression influences individuals' decision to engage in it more so than how much risk they think there is. Moreover, while salience of regime's repressive injunctive norm impacts both affective and cognitive risk components pertaining to online expression, it indirectly influences intention to express political opinions online via citizens' feelings about the behavior. The findings also reveal the conditional impact of regime opposition and involvement with the content of expressive behaviors on these relationships. Overall, by bringing the focus back to individuals, this project offers a more nuanced understanding of how online political expression contributes to endeavors to deal with repression at the citizen level.

Committee: Erik C. Nisbet (Advisor); R. Kelly Garrett (Committee Member); Robert M. Bond (Committee Member); Emad Khazraee (Committee Member) Subjects: Communication

Master of Arts, University of Toledo, 2018, Philosophy

This paper is a five-chapter exploration into the relationship between a Hobbesian notion of sovereignty, and the implementation of Marxism in the Soviet Union. The political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes has been most often interpreted through a particular reading of the German Carl Schmitt, which. as a result, has rendered Hobbesian philosophy synonymous with a strict, authoritarian nationalism like the Nazi party in Germany. However, simplifying the role of sovereign authority Nazism misses the strong parallels present between the relationship of the sovereign and the commonwealth, and the implementation of Marxism under Josef Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. This model, wherein the Soviet citizens have been removed from the political realm forms an analogous relationship to what is present under the Hobbesian social contract. This is not to say that Marxism can be read back to Hobbes, but, rather, that Stalin's leadership implemented a version of the social contract which inadvertently drew upon Hobbesian influence. Through an assembling of primary and secondary sources, this thesis aims to show that a left-leaning reading of Hobbes is not only possible, but has a real-world example to draw upon.

Committee: Benjamin Grazzini PhD. (Committee Chair); Ammon Allred PhD (Committee Member); Roberto Padilla PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Philosophy

Doctor of Philosophy, Miami University, 2018, Political Science

Adding to the existing literature examining the challenges of democratization in African states, this work addresses how elite settlements have resulted in the gradual development of the authoritarian state in Zimbabwe. Drawing from similar arguments by Bratton and van de Walle (1997) and Bratton (2014) that contend that settler oligarchies such as Zimbabwe simply inherited and continued the raw power politics of the violent colonial state, I explore the contingency of elite settlements and their impact on stalling democratic movements. Following the argument by Higley and Burton (1989) that elite settlements offer the possibility of democratic outcomes, given that they contribute to political stability through boundary setting and horizontal accountability, in this dissertation I contend that elite settlements only accelerated the rise of ZANU-PF as the dominant political party. Instead of facilitating political openings conducive to democracy, the inability of elite settlements to guarantee an equal distribution of power among competing groups reinforced authoritarian rule and political violence. As an exploratory dissertation aimed at explaining the authoritarian state in Zimbabwe rather than focusing on theory-testing or building a set of hypotheses, my research focuses on elite settlements as a possible framework for future comparative studies that examine the main features of political transition in Africa.

Committee: Abdoulaye Saine (Committee Chair); Richard Quantz (Committee Member); Venelin Ganev (Committee Member); Walt Vanderbush (Committee Member) Subjects: African Studies; Comparative; Political Science

Bachelor of Arts, Ohio University, 2017, Political Science

By identifying trends in social media, state constructed museums, and officially published material, I examine the way in which the state, top down, forms conceptions of national identity and citizenship in Jordan. In This project contributes to the literature on national identity and citizenship while integrating modern source work. Citizenship and identity have faced several important transitions, this project focuses on the most recent regime change to see how citizenship has been constructed in this highly authoritarian environment. Citizenship in Jordan is constantly being negotiated down communal lines and have a major affect on the livelihood of citizens.

Committee: Sandal Nukhet (Advisor) Subjects: Political Science

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 1958, Graduate School

Committee: Not Provided (Other) Subjects: Psychology

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2015, Political Science

There are many long-lasting hegemonic parties throughout the world, which have ensured successive electoral victories with comfortable margins in semi-authoritarian, multi-party settings. The extant body of the literature on hegemonic parties focuses either on the survival or the demise of these regimes. Yet, how these parties establish their hegemonic status in the first place has caught scant attention. Aiming to address this literary gap, I provide a theory about the emergence of hegemonic parties in this dissertation. I argue that a combination of individual, local, and national level factors should come together for the rise of hegemonic parties. At the individual level, I explore the effect of ideology and clientelism in hegemony building. At the local level, I examine the role of pork barrel politics, locality-specific socio-cultural and political factors behind the emergence of hegemonic parties. At the national level, I delve into important issues in hegemony building, such as intra-party politics, electoral institutions, regime type, and government-opposition relations. I conduct research at these levels, thanks to a multi-method approach that incorporates a diverse set of techniques including, but not limited to, content analysis, elite-level interviews, statistical analyses, and surveys. In my theory of hegemony building, I take the case of Turkey under the rising hegemony of Justice and Development Party (AKP) rule as my main case study. Since its establishment, AKP has succeeded in winning all the national and local elections in Turkey with comfortable margins. AKP has also started to establish its governmental hegemony in recent years, as crystallized in the party's multiple forays into the judiciary and efforts to shape the education system. AKP intends to build a “New Turkey”, unlike the secular state that the founders of the Turkish Republic, first and the foremost Mustafa Kemal Ataturk once envisioned, along with the party's religious ideology (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Anthony Mughan (Committee Chair); Richard Gunther (Committee Member); Jeremy Wallace (Committee Member) Subjects: Political Science

Master of Arts (MA), Wright State University, 2013, International and Comparative Politics

The case of Rwanda provides a laboratory to explore a unique set of circumstances. This thesis builds upon feminist theory, the literature on post-conflict situations and failed states. It finds that although Rwanda's post-conflict situation provided unexpected and historic opportunities for women to enter politics (a record 64 percent of the members of parliament are female), more women in parliament does not mean the end of patriarchy. Since 1994, Rwanda has experienced significant yet limited progress toward gender equality in employment and education. However, much remains to be done and gender dynamics have not changed substantively. Rather, increasing the numbers of women in parliament has been politically expedient for the governing Rwandan Patriot Front, which has not done all it can to empower women. Therefore, Rwandan women are in a precarious position; they owe their opportunity to participate in democratic institutions to a political party that runs an authoritarian state.

Committee: December Green Ph.D (Committee Chair); Laura Luehrmann Ph.D (Committee Member); Donna Schlagheck Ph.D (Committee Member) Subjects: International Relations; Political Science

PhD, University of Cincinnati, 2000, Arts and Sciences : Psychology

This cross-national project examined whether the world press uses social science constructs to portray aspiring dictators and dictators in power, specifically Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Russia, Jean-Marie Le Pen of France, and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Computer-aided content analysis was used to assess the world press' use of four social science constructs, paranoia, authoritarianism, irredentism and anti-Semitism in profiles about the three dictators in question as well as comparison world leaders. A contextualist approach was employed for this study, allowing examination of construct use across a variety of contexts including differences in electoral threat, military power, dictatorial status and investment opportunities. The sample consisted of 358 profiles of world leaders published in 19 major English language world press journals. Two word lists for each construct, one compiled by lay readers and one generated by an expert judge for a given construct, and the Gough Adjective Check List were used for computer-aided content analysis of the articles. A series of t-tests and cross-case comparisons was used to compare the use of constructs. Results indicate that the constructs were used more for dictators in general than for non-dictatorial world leaders, and were used more to describe an aspiring dictator when he poses a greater electoral threat than when he poses a lesser electoral threat. The size of the military threat posed by the nation of the aspiring dictator was not found to be related to the frequency of use of the constructs. The varying magnitude of several international incidents involving a dictator in power did not affect the frequency of construct use. The data indicate that construct use occurs more for the two aspiring European dictators, Zhirinovsky and Le Pen, than for an Asian dictator in power, Lee. There was some evidence that the presence of exceptional investment opportunities in Singapore affected the use of the constructs. Neither the Gough (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: William Meyers (Advisor) Subjects:

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2011, Political Science

Can a one-party-dominant authoritarian regime survive in a modernized society? Why is it that some survive while others fail? Singapore and Taiwan provide comparable cases to partially explain this puzzle. Both countries share many similar cultural and developmental backgrounds. One-party dominance in Taiwan failed in the 1980s when Taiwan became modern. But in Singapore, the one-party regime survived the opposition's challenges in the 1960s and has remained stable since then. There are few comparative studies of these two countries. Through empirical studies of the two cases, I conclude that regime structure, i.e., clientelistic versus professional structure, affects the chances of authoritarian survival after the society becomes modern. This conclusion is derived from a two-country comparative study. Further research is necessary to test if the same conclusion can be applied to other cases. This research contributes to the understanding of one-party-dominant regimes in modernizing societies.

Committee: R. William Liddle (Committee Chair); Jeremy Wallace (Advisor); Kurtz Marcus (Committee Member) Subjects: Political Science; Regional Studies

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2008, Human Development and Family Science

The role ideology plays in human activity has undergone a resurgence of interest (Jost, 2006; Rudolph, and Evans, 2005; Van Hiel, Mervielde, and De Fruyt, 2004) after lying dormant for many years. Following the destructiveness of World War II, the Frankfurt School and a group identified as End of Ideology emerged analyzing the role of ideology. The Frankfurt School (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) approached ideology by analyzing the possibility of an authoritarian personality. The End of Ideology group concluded that ideology had discontinued its importance in the post War West (Bell, 1960; Lipset, 1960). Both of these views fall short because stronger connection needs to be made between individual and community in understanding ideology's power and implications. Ideology is a dynamic instrument that is used to guide behavior and achieve individual and community goals. Through the use of anxiety and fear, ideology easily becomes a tool utilized for authoritarian goals by groups seeking to either expand or maintain power. The theoretical framework created for the examination of the relationship between ideology and authoritarianism combines the Pragmatic Instrumentalism of John Dewey (1938) who wrote extensively on the necessity for examining a real (existential) problem; the work of Erik Erikson (1968) who analyzed ideology as the other side of the center of his theory - identity within a social, cultural, historical perspective; and Uri Bronfenbrenner (1977) who provides an ecological model that emphasizes the interconnectedness of environments. By integrating these three theorists and using the case studies of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), the possibility will be explored that ideology permits policies to develop which fail to address the true problem, leading to a concentration on observable symptoms. The potential to move away from the authoritarian use of ideology is investigated through Erik (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Michael Glassman Ph.D. (Committee Co-Chair); Natasha Slesnick Ph.D. (Committee Co-Chair); Ann Allen Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Social Research

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2005, Psychology

The recent history of attitudes toward criminals seems to show a sharp increase in public and legislative punitiveness, with very serious consequences especially for juveniles and sex offenders. This study investigated how these attitudes vary with established factors as well as new or understudied variables, such as perpetrator age and type of offense. Significant effects were found for profession of participants, offender age, participant age, and belief in the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Although punishment attitudes, treatment attitudes, and attributions of responsibility varied with these factors, hypotheses regarding adolescence and sex offenders received only partial support. Studies of punitive attitudes toward offenders have largely relied on simple theoretical models. A more complex model of the genesis of punitive attitudes was fit to the data using structural equation modeling techniques, but fit was poor. Results are discussed in terms of past literature and the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and demonizing of outgroups in general, and perpetrators specifically.

Committee: Steven Beck (Advisor) Subjects:

Doctor of Philosophy, Miami University, 2011, Political Science

Beginning with the insight that highly-centralized state structures have historically provided a unifying target and fulcrum for the mobilization of contentious nationwide social movements, this dissertation investigates the hypothesis that decentralized state structures in authoritarian regimes impede the development of forms of popular contention sustained and coordinated on a national scale. As defined in this work, in a decentralized state, local officials assume greater discretionary control over public expenditures, authority over the implementation of government policies, and latitude in managing outbreaks of social unrest within their jurisdictions. As a result, they become the direct targets of most protests aimed at the state and the primary mediators of actions directed at third-party, non-state actors. A decentralized state therefore presents not one but a multitude of loci for protests, diminishing claimants' ability to use the central state as a unifying target and fulcrum for organizing national contentious movements. For this reason, decentralized autocracies are expected to face more fragmented popular oppositions and exhibit higher levels of durability than their more centralized counterparts. To examine this claim, I conduct four comparative case studies, organized into pairs of autocracies that share a common regime type but vary in terms of state decentralization. These include the single-party autocracies of Taiwan (1949-1996) and China (1949-present) and the personalist autocracies of the Philippines (1972-1986) and Kazakhstan (1991-present). This dissertation compares streams of contention in each of these sites, examining how state structures facilitate and/or impede the shift from localized and particularized forms of contention into nation-level social movements. These divergent outcomes are expected to have a powerful impact on the resilience of individual autocratic states and their likelihood of experiencing regime breakdown.

Committee: Venelin Ganev PhD (Committee Chair); Gulnaz Sharafutdinova PhD (Committee Member); Adeed Dawisha PhD (Committee Member); Stanley Toops PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Asian Studies; Political Science