東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaini...

Pechvijitra, Pechsiree,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections // Pechsiree Pechvijitra.
作者:	Pechvijitra, Pechsiree,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (351 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-03A.
標題:	Members of Parliament. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31338986
ISBN:	9798384217817

Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections /
Pechvijitra, Pechsiree,

Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections /Pechsiree Pechvijitra. - 1 electronic resource (351 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.

Inspired by Thailand's long-standing struggle for democracy and the middle class' recent astonishing support for military coups and the pro-regime Palang Pracharath party, this study examines how authoritarian regimes pursue consent from citizens. It argues that although coercion and electoral manipulation are important tactics frequently employed by authoritarian regimes, authoritarian incumbents solidify power and institutionalize themselves during a transition by acquiring consent from citizens. Voter consent bestows legitimacy to authoritarian incumbents, which in turn buttresses regime stability. Focusing on Palang Pracharath's surprise "victory" in Thailand's 2019 general elections, this study finds that voter consent stems from three primary sources-the MP candidate, policy, and ideology-and thus identifies three pathways to consent accordingly. To explain consent, this study divides voters according to their socioeconomic dependence on the state and politicians and contends that dependent voters are more likely to vote based on material interests whereas independent voters are more likely to vote based on their ideological interests. Some voters, however, engage in strategic voting, choosing a party they less prefer but believe has a better chance of winning to avoid wasting their votes. The different voting behaviors lead to different types of consent. This study, therefore, develops a new typology, which classifies consent into "sincere" and "strategic" consent. A vote for authoritarian incumbents is considered "sincere consent" if the voter votes for a pro-regime party out of sincere preference. Conversely, a vote for authoritarian incumbents is considered "strategic consent" if the voter votes for a pro-regime party strategically. The two types of consent have different implications for the future of the authoritarian successor party and the regime. While sincere consent could cultivate political loyalty for the party and bolster regime stability, strategic consent is a product of one election and thus ephemeral.

English

ISBN: 9798384217817Subjects--Topical Terms:

3564274
Members of Parliament.

Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections /
LDR:05852nmm a22003733i 4500 001 2428243
005 20250414021645.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798384217817
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31338986
035 $a (MiAaPQD)McGillqv33s2928
035 $a AAI31338986
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Pechvijitra, Pechsiree, $e author. $3 3815326
245 1 0 $a Consenting to Dictatorship? Explaining Voter Behavior and Authoritarian Power Institutionalization in Thailand's 2019 Elections / $c Pechsiree Pechvijitra.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (351 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Kuhonta, Erik.
502 $b Ph.D. $c McGill University (Canada) $d 2024.
520 $a Inspired by Thailand's long-standing struggle for democracy and the middle class' recent astonishing support for military coups and the pro-regime Palang Pracharath party, this study examines how authoritarian regimes pursue consent from citizens. It argues that although coercion and electoral manipulation are important tactics frequently employed by authoritarian regimes, authoritarian incumbents solidify power and institutionalize themselves during a transition by acquiring consent from citizens. Voter consent bestows legitimacy to authoritarian incumbents, which in turn buttresses regime stability. Focusing on Palang Pracharath's surprise "victory" in Thailand's 2019 general elections, this study finds that voter consent stems from three primary sources-the MP candidate, policy, and ideology-and thus identifies three pathways to consent accordingly. To explain consent, this study divides voters according to their socioeconomic dependence on the state and politicians and contends that dependent voters are more likely to vote based on material interests whereas independent voters are more likely to vote based on their ideological interests. Some voters, however, engage in strategic voting, choosing a party they less prefer but believe has a better chance of winning to avoid wasting their votes. The different voting behaviors lead to different types of consent. This study, therefore, develops a new typology, which classifies consent into "sincere" and "strategic" consent. A vote for authoritarian incumbents is considered "sincere consent" if the voter votes for a pro-regime party out of sincere preference. Conversely, a vote for authoritarian incumbents is considered "strategic consent" if the voter votes for a pro-regime party strategically. The two types of consent have different implications for the future of the authoritarian successor party and the regime. While sincere consent could cultivate political loyalty for the party and bolster regime stability, strategic consent is a product of one election and thus ephemeral.
520 $a Inspiree par la lutte de longue date de la Thailande pour la democratie et par le soutien etonnant recent de la classe moyenne aux coups d'Etat militaires et au parti pro-regime Palang Pracharath, cette etude examine comment les regimes autoritaires recherchent le consentement des citoyens. Elle soutient que bien que la coercition et la manipulation electorale soient des tactiques importantes frequemment utilisees par les regimes autoritaires, les dirigeants autoritaires consolident leur pouvoir et s'institutionnalisent lors d'une transition en acquerant le consentement des citoyens. Le consentement des electeurs confere une legitimite aux dirigeants autoritaires, ce qui a son tour renforce la stabilite du regime. En se concentrant sur la "victoire" surprise de Palang Pracharath lors des elections generales de 2019 en Thailande, cette etude constate que le consentement des electeurs provient de trois sources principales : le candidat depute, la politique et l'ideologie, et identifie donc trois voies vers le consentement en consequence. Pour expliquer le consentement, cette etude divise les electeurs en fonction de leur dependance socio-economique a l'egard de l'Etat et des politiciens, et affirme que les electeurs dependants sont plus susceptibles de voter en fonction de leurs interets materiels, tandis que les electeurs independants sont plus susceptibles de voter en fonction de leurs interets ideologiques. Cependant, certains electeurs adoptent un vote strategique, choisissant un parti qu'ils preferent moins mais qu'ils estiment avoir une meilleure chance de gagner pour eviter de gaspiller leurs votes. Les differents comportements de vote conduisent a differents types de consentement. Cette etude developpe donc une nouvelle typologie, qui classe le consentement en "consentement sincere" et "consentement strategique." Un vote en faveur des dirigeants autoritaires est considere comme un "consentement sincere" si l'electeur vote pour un parti pro-regime par preference sincere. En revanche, un vote en faveur des dirigeants autoritaires est considere comme un "consentement strategique" si l'electeur vote strategiquement pour un parti pro-regime. Les deux types de consentement ont des implications differentes pour l'avenir du parti successeur autoritaire et du regime. Alors que le consentement sincere pourrait cultiver la fidelite politique envers le parti et renforcer la stabilite du regime, le consentement strategique est un produit d'une election et donc ephemere.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0781
650 4 $a Members of Parliament. $3 3564274
650 4 $a Referendums. $3 3564113
650 4 $a Democracy. $3 519163
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Political parties. $3 516328
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a McGill University (Canada). $e degree granting institution. $3 3759190
720 1 $a Kuhonta, Erik $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-03A.
790 $a 0781
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31338986