The purpose of this study was to shed light on the relationship between regimes with a strong personalist dimension and a negative post-tenure fate. This was a relevant exercise, because the...Show moreThe purpose of this study was to shed light on the relationship between regimes with a strong personalist dimension and a negative post-tenure fate. This was a relevant exercise, because the personalist dimension was missing in existing frameworks addressing post-tenure fates of authoritarian leaders and elites. Based on available literature, this personalist dimension was hypothesized to be a strong indicator for a negative post-tenure fate. In this thesis this hypothesis is substantiated and found to be statistically significant through merging of the Archigos data-set on regime leaders and Geddes’ (1999) typology of authoritarian regimes. The relationship is then further explored through analysis of two similar cases, Libya and Tunisia. Based on this analysis it was possible to draw several plausible hypotheses regarding the relationship, which provide an interesting starting point for future research. All in all, it is clearly shown that the conditions that come with a strong personalist dimension can be expected to have a strong negative influence on the post-tenure fate of the regime leadership.Show less
Analysis of the breakdown of Thai democracy in September 2006. Based on general theroretical axiomas on democratic consolidation and democratic breakdown a qualitative and a quantitative analysis...Show moreAnalysis of the breakdown of Thai democracy in September 2006. Based on general theroretical axiomas on democratic consolidation and democratic breakdown a qualitative and a quantitative analysis are used to provide possible causes for the breakdown of democracy in Thailand. Economical circumstances, the interpretation of democracy or socialization cannot be identified as causes for the breakdown. Especially interesting is that income and appreciation of democracy are correlated negatively in Thailand in 2002 and 2006. From 2002 to 2006 interpersonal trust is decreased while distrust has increased.Show less
