Diaspora politics has been celebrated as a form of transnationalism that can potentially challenge authoritarian regimes. Arguably, opposition groups and political activists can mobilize beyond the territorial limits of the state, thus bypassing some of the constraints to political organization found in authoritarian states. The literature on transnational and extraterritorial repression complicates this model, for it shows that states can use strategies of ‘long‐distance authoritarianism’ to monitor, intimidate and harass diasporic populations abroad. Yet, non‐state actors in the diaspora also sometimes use such repressive strategies to mobilize internally, gain hegemony within the diaspora, and marginalize or eliminate internal rivals. This raises the question of whether such activities can be understood as non‐state forms of authoritarianism. Cases of diasporic politics pertaining to Turkey and Sri Lanka are briefly explored with a view to examining how state and non‐state forms of transnational repression can, under some conditions, result in the dynamics of competitive authoritarianism within a diaspora. In such cases, ‘ordinary’ members of the diaspora may become caught between multiple forms of transnational repression in addition to potentially experiencing marginalization and securitization in their new home.

中文翻译：

---

非国家威权主义和散居政治

侨民政治已被誉为一种跨国主义形式，有可能挑战威权政体。可以说，反对派团体和政治活动家可以在国家领土范围之外动员起来，从而绕开了专制国家对政治组织的某些限制。关于跨国和域外镇压的文献使该模型复杂化，因为它表明国家可以使用“长距离威权主义”战略来监视，恐吓和骚扰国外的海外人口。但是，散居国外的非国家行为者有时也使用这种镇压策略来内部动员，在散居国内获得霸权，并边缘化或消除内部竞争对手。这就提出了一个问题，即这种活动是否可以理解为非国家形式的威权主义。简要探讨了与土耳其和斯里兰卡有关的流放政治的案例，以研究在某些条件下国家和非国家形式的跨国镇压如何在侨民内部导致竞争性威权主义的动力。在这种情况下，散居的“普通”成员除了可能在其新家中遭受边缘化和证券化之外，还可能陷入多种形式的跨国镇压之间。