Authoritarian propaganda campaigns on foreign affairs: four birds with one stone
Why do authoritarian states sometimes play up dangerous internationalcrises and embarrassing diplomatic incidents in domestic propaganda? Isit to mobilize, threaten, divert or pacify? Recent studies in comparativepolitics have focused on regime legitimacy and stability as key drivers ofauthoritarian...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3683 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4941/viewcontent/Authoritarian.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Why do authoritarian states sometimes play up dangerous internationalcrises and embarrassing diplomatic incidents in domestic propaganda? Isit to mobilize, threaten, divert or pacify? Recent studies in comparativepolitics have focused on regime legitimacy and stability as key drivers ofauthoritarian propaganda practices, overlooking other possiblemotivations such as mobilization of the regime’s domestic allies orstrategic signaling aimed at foreign audiences. Foreign policy analysts,meanwhile, have emphasized international dimensions of thepropaganda behavior of China — the contemporary world’s mostpowerful and technologically sophisticated authoritarian state — but haveoften mistakenly framed complementary theories as competingalternative explanations. Paying attention to the multiple domestic andinternational audiences for authoritarian propaganda, this articledemonstrates the logical and empirical compatibility of four supposedlycompeting explanations for propaganda campaigns on foreign policyissues: mobilization, signaling, diversion, and pacification. Afterelaborating the theoretical and observable implications of these fourexplanations, the article illustrates their simultaneous operation withinthe single case of China’s high-intensity propaganda campaign over the2016 South China Sea arbitration. |
|---|