User Tools

Site Tools


authoritarian
Snippet from Wikipedia: Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature, and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.

In an influential 1964 work, the political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

  1. Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties, and interest groups;
  2. Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion, and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment, and insurgency";
  3. Minimal political mobilization and suppression of anti-regime activities;
  4. Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.

Minimally defined, an authoritarian government lacks free and competitive direct elections to legislatures, free and competitive direct or indirect elections for executives, or both. Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack the civil liberties such as freedom of religion, or countries in which the government and the opposition do not alternate in power at least once following free elections.

Authoritarian states might contain nominally democratic institutions, such as political parties, legislatures and elections, which are managed to entrench authoritarian rule; thus, a dictatorship can feature fraudulent, non-competitive elections. Since 1946, the share of authoritarian states in the international political system increased until the mid-1970s, but declined from then until the year 2000.

Authoritarian is an attribute of a strict authority figure. Authoritarian governments are often overreaching and draconian.

See Also

Authoritarianism Terms


's chancellorship in Austria contained many authoritarian elements.]]

Authoritarianism is a form of government.<ref name=“:0”>

</ref><ref name=“Baars, J. 1993 pp. 345-353”>Baars, J. & Scheepers, P. (1993). “Theoretical and methodological foundations of the authoritarian personality”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 29, pp. 345-353.</ref><ref name=“Adorno, T. W. 1950”>Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Norton: NY.</ref> It is characterized by absolute or blind<ref>"authoritarianism" at the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]</ref> obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.<ref>"Authoritarianism" at the free dictionary</ref>

Juan Linz, whose 1964 description of authoritarianism is influential,<ref>Richard Shorten, Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 256 (note 67).</ref> characterized authoritarian regimes as political systems by four qualities: (1) “limited, not responsible, political pluralism”; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups (such as legislatures, political parties and interest groups), (2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat “easily recognizable societal problems” such as underdevelopment or insurgency; (3) neither “intensive nor extensive political mobilization” and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity) and (4) “formally ill-defined” executive power, often shifting or vague.<ref>Gretchen Casper, Fragile Democracies: The Legacies of Authoritarian Rule, p. 40-50 (citing Linz 1964).</ref>

Authoritarian government and states

Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others); unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.<ref>Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights (Routledge, 2003), p. 71 (citing Linz 1964 and others).</ref>

Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others.<ref name=“Gasiorowski”>Mark J. Gasiorowski, The Political Regimes Project, in On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (ed. Alex Inketes), 2006, p. 110-11.</ref> Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes. Traditional authoritarian regimes are those “in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)” is maintained in power “through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties”; an example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.<ref name=“Gasiorowski”/> Bureacratic-military authoritarian regimes are those “governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality.<ref name=“Gasiorowski”/> Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish “simple military authoritarian regimes” from “bureaucratic authoritarian regimes” in which “a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop the economy” such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.<ref name=“Gasiorowski”/>

Linz also has identified three other subtypes of authoritarian regime: corporatist or organic-statistic, racial and ethnic “democracy” and post-totalitarian.<ref name=“Gasiorowski”/>

  • Corporatist authoritarian regimes “are those in which corporatist institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups”; this type has been studied most extensively in Latin America.<ref name=“Gasiorowski” />
  • Racial and ethnic “democracies” are those in which “certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights,” such as in South Africa under apartheid.<ref name=“Gasiorowski” /> Some have pointed to Israel as another example of “democratic” authoritarianism. The far-reaching implications of denying a different group republican privileges can contribute to the typically highly negative international view of these types of governments.
  • Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media) remain, but where “ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has declined substantially.”<ref name=“Gasiorowski” /> Examples include the Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.<ref name=“Gasiorowski” />

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or ''populist''. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised “mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutitions and formal rules.”<ref name=“Gasiorowski”/> Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes “are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manuipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups.” One example is Argentina under Perón.

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.<ref name=“Vestal”>Theodore M. Vesta, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17.</ref>

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is “self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors,” the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.<ref name=“Vestal”/>

A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.<ref name=“Vestal”/>

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through “inadequate performance to demands of the people.”<ref name=“Vestal”/> Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to “adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system.”<ref name=“Vestal”/> Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.<ref name=“Vestal”/>

Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.<ref name=“Vestal”/> The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.<ref name=“Vestal”/>

John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism.<ref>

</ref> Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.<ref>

</ref>

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

, ruler of Saudi Arabia.]]

, president of Zimbabwe.]]

Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:<ref name=“Sondrol”>

</ref>

Totalitarianism Authoritarianism
Charisma High Low
Role conception Leader as function Leader as individual
Ends of power Public Private
Corruption Low High
Official ideology Yes No
Limited pluralism No Yes
Legitimacy Yes No

Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they differ in “key dichotomies”:

Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

Authoritarianism and democracy

.]] Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, it is thus definitely possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a form of submission to authority. For instance, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey, was elected three times, but shows strong authoritarian tendencies.<ref name=“nytimes.com”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/opinion/turkeys-authoritarian-turn.html?_r=0</ref><ref name=“al-monitor.com”>http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/turkey-egypt-authoritarian.html</ref><ref name=“turkishpoliticsupdates.wordpress.com”>http://turkishpoliticsupdates.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/financial-times-on-erdogans-growing-authoritarianism/</ref><ref name=“progressivepress.net”>http://www.progressivepress.net/will-turkish-pm-erdogans-authoritarian-rule-blow-up-in-his-face/</ref><ref name=“ft.com”>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46463fa0-3b8e-11e1-bb39-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qNqnR8kX</ref><ref>http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-03/opinions/39715196_1_protesters-akp-protect-journalists</ref><ref>http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=317450&columnistId=0</ref> An illiberal democracy (or procedural democracy) is distinguished from liberal democracy (or substantive democracy) in that illiberal democracies lack the more democratic features of liberal democracies, such as the rule of law, an independent judiciary, along with a further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less battle deaths with one another, and that democracies have much fewer civil wars.<ref>

</ref><ref>

</ref>

  • “Poor democracies” tend to have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than “poor dictatorships”. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education. Instead, the available resources are more likely to be managed better.<ref name = “shqzhz”>

    </ref>

  • Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.<ref>

    </ref>

  • A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has theorized that no functioning country labeled as having a liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.<ref>

    </ref> This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large-scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. (However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II

    . The government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years. Provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.)

  • Refugee crises occur more often in the less democratic countries. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in the most authoritarian countries.<ref name=“shqzhz”/>
  • Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. However, it should be noted that those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.<ref>

    </ref>

  • Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.<ref>

Daniel Lederman, Normal Loaza, Rodrigo Res Soares, (November 2001). "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter". World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708. SSRN 632777. Retrieved February 19, 2006.</ref> Freedom of information legislation is important for accountability and transparency. The Indian Right to Information Act “has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely.”<ref>

</ref>

  • Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in countries labeled as democracies. Similarly, those labeled as “poor democracies” are half as likely as countries labeled as “authoritarian regimes” to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.<ref name = “shqzhz”/>
  • One study has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic nations.<ref>

    </ref>

Examples of authoritarian states

, caudillo of Spain from 1936 to 1975, led an authoritarian regime that persisted until his death and the Spanish transition to democracy.]] Since there is no precise, universally agreed definition of authoritarianism, there is no definitive list of states that are authoritarian. But several annual measurements attempt to do so, including the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index (which classifies 51 states as “Authoritarian regimes”) and Freedom House's Freedom in the World report.

Examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian:

Examples of states which were historically authoritarian:

Authoritarianism in history

In contrast to the varying manifestations of authoritarianism, more democratic forms of governance as a standard mode of political organization became widespread only after the Industrial Revolution had established modernity. Tyrants and oligarchs bracketed the flourishing of democracy in ancient Athens; and kings and emperors preceded and followed experimentation with democratic forms in the Roman Republic. In the 15th century, Vlad Dracula is credited for being the first ruler of Wallachia and Transylvania to rule by Authoritarianism.<ref>Treptow, Kurt W. “Vlad III Dracula and his Relations with the Boyars and the Church.” East European Monographs, No. DXIX. Columbia University Press: New York, 1998. p.27–40</ref>

Anti-authoritarianism

Anti-authoritarianism is opposition to authoritarianism, which is defined as a “a form of social organisation characterised by submission to authority”.<ref>

</ref> Anti-authoritarians usually believe in full equality before the law and strong civil liberties. Sometimes the term is used interchangeably with anarchism, an ideology which rejects the state and other compulsory forms of hierarchical authority altogether. Influential anarchist Mikhail Bakunin thought that “Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person.”<ref>"What is Authority?" by Mikhail Bakunin</ref>

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.<ref name=“merriam-webster.com”>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker</ref><ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+thought</ref><ref>http://www.iheu.org/glossary/12#letterf</ref> The cognitive application of freethought is known as “freethinking”, and practitioners of freethought are known as “freethinkers”.<ref name=“merriam-webster.com”/><ref>http://archive.is/20120804135530/http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.php</ref> After World War II there was a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism based on anti-fascism in Europe. This was attributed to the active resistance from occupation and to fears arising from the development of superpowers.<ref name=“swcjsb”>

</ref> Anti-authoritarianism also became associated with countercultural and bohemian movements such as the Beat Generation in the 1950s,<ref>"The American Novel" at [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS] website]</ref> the hippies in the 1960s<ref name=“Stonepolitics”>“The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom&nbsp;… Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe.”

</ref> and punks in the 1970s.<ref>

</ref>

Gender and Authoritarianism

According to an article titled “Gender Inequality and Gender Differences in Authoritarianism” there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment, and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held more authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.<ref>Gender Inequality and Gender Differences in Authoritarianism (2012)  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,  38  (10) , pp. 1301-1315.</ref>

See also

Notes

Works cited

  • Juan J. Linz, An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain, in Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (eds. Eric Allard & Yrjo Littunen) (Helsinki: Academic, 1964)</ref>
authoritarian.txt · Last modified: 2019/12/01 02:58 (external edit)