Credible Commitment,Meritocracy,and The Resilience Of Hegemonic-party Regimes

In the 1970s,with the expansion of the third wave of democratization in developing countries,most developing countries started the transition to democracy.However,with the passage of time,scholars have found that most countries have not formed a Western-style democratic system after transformation,but have entered a "political gray area".These regimes hold multi-party elections and have non-democratic political practices.This kind of regime is defined by related scholars as "competitive authoritarian regime".Therefore,describing and explaining such regimes has attracted the interest and attention of a large number of scholars.Issues such as the origin of regimes,their internal operating mechanisms,stability or resilience have rapidly become the focus of research in Western comparative politics in recent years.In terms of the resilience of authoritarian regimes,scholars have found that authoritarian regimes that rely on the organization of the ruling party are more stable.The research object of this paper relies on the authoritarian regime of the ruling party organization—the hegemonic party system.Hegemonic party systems are the most influential and most numerous of the subtypes of "competitive authoritarian regimes".The existing theory holds that the ruling party organization can effectively manage the elite,improve the cohesion of the elite,and then maintain the stability of the authoritarian regime.The research question of this paper is the authoritarian state with a ruling party organization.Why do some countries adopt more institutionalized models to manage elites and can effectively manage elites?There are fewer elite conflicts,and the political situation remains stable for a long time;why do some countries use more political bribes and violence to manage elites?Fail to manage elites effectively?There are many conflicts between elites,resulting in turbulent time for the political director.This paper mainly adopts the comparative historical analysis method,using a rigorous comparative method to select the two cases of Tanzania and Kenya.The research question of this paper is answered by a controlled comparison of two very similar cases.Through the comparative study of the two cases,it is found that whether a credible commitment system is established within the ruling party organization and the realization of power sharing with the party elites is the key to determining the elite management method adopted by the ruling party.The CCM has long established a credible commitment system within the party,realized power sharing with the political elite,and adopted an institutionalized elite management method—political absorption of management elites.When political elites clash,a powerful ruling party can become a platform for resolving elite differences and ease the intensity of elite struggle.When faced with the pressure of democratization reform,because the elites in the party maintain cohesion,the power of the elites in the party has always been stronger than that of the opposition,so it can maintain political continuity and political stability.However,the Kenya African National Union did not establish a credible commitment system within the party during the one-party system.Power was monopolized by a few elites in the party.The model of individual decision-making made the political survival and interests of the elites in the party not guaranteed.If it can become a platform for resolving elite conflicts,it cannot manage elites within the party,nor can it attract elites outside the party.It can only adopt non-institutionalized elite management methods—violent repression and political bribes.The non-institutionalized meritocracy led to constant conflicts among the elites within the party,and eventually they left the party and joined the opposition,which gradually grew stronger.After the democratization reform,in the face of multi-party competition,the opposition forces finally defeated the rulers,resulting in the loss of politics.