Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies

Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics

by Edward L. Gibson

The democratization of a national government is only a first step in the diffusion of democracy throughout a country's territory. Even after a national government is democratized, subnational authoritarian "enclaves" often continue to deny rights to citizens of local jurisdictions. Edward L. Gibson offers new theoretical perspectives for the study of democratization in his exploration of this phenomenon. His theory of "boundary control" captures the conflict pattern between incumbents and oppositions when a national democratic government exists alongside authoritarian provinces (or "states"). He also reveals how federalism and the territorial organization of countries shape how subnational authoritarian regimes are built and how they unravel. Through a novel comparison of the late nineteenth-century American "Solid South" with contemporary experiences in Argentina and Mexico, Gibson reveals that the mechanisms of boundary control are reproduced across countries and historical periods. As long as subnational authoritarian governments coexist with national democratic governments, boundary control will be at play.

Genres: Political Science

200 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 12, 2012

Reviews

[Lydia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, easy to understand and convincing argument for federalism's potential to create authoritarian enclaves. Of particular interest is Gibson's discussion of the "Solid South" and the pervasive authoritarian regime that existed in the US until (at least) the VRA. Usually when I read books for class I find them to be pretty dry and hard to get into but this was the exception.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth reading for a good understanding of how sub-national authoritarianism perpetuates itself through boundary-closing (vs. provincial opposition's attempts to boundary-open). Discussion on when, why, and how transitions away (party-led v. center-led) are also quite useful and informative.

Two main flaws were, first, that case studies were a little sparse, and secondly, the book didn't address the difference between a personal sub-national authoritarian regime (a la Santiago de Estero) or party regimes with extensive intra-party democratic conflict (i.e. the "Solid South) or in-between (Oaxaca).

Still quite interesting and worth reading if interested (which may be considerably niche).