Political Science and Theory: Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by:

The rejection of political plurality (competing groups);
The use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo,
Reductions in: the rule of law; separation of powers; democratic voting.

Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.

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

Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
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 or insurgency."
Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
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 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 and 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.

Contents

Characteristics

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized government 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. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity." However, Daniel A. Bell and Wang Pei used China's experience with COVID-19 to argue that the categories are not so clear cut.

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. 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.

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.

Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes

Authoritarian regimes often adopt "the institutional trappings" of democracies such as constitutions. Constitutions in authoritarian states may serve a variety of roles, including "operating manual" (describing how the government is to function); "billboard" (signal of regime's intent), "blueprint" (outline of future regime plans), and "window dressing" (material designed to obfuscate, such as provisions setting forth freedoms that are not honored in practice). Authoritarian constitutions may help legitimize, strengthen, and consolidate regimes. An authoritarian constitution "that successfully coordinates government action and defines popular expectations can also help consolidate the regime's grip on power by inhibiting re coordination on a different set of arrangements." Unlike democratic constitutions, authoritarian constitutions do not set direct limits on executive authority; however, in some cases such documents may function as ways for elites to protect their own property rights or constrain autocrats' behavior.

The concept of "authoritarian constitutionalism" has been developed by legal scholar Mark Tushnet. Tushnet distinguishes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes from "liberal constitutionalist" regimes ("the sort familiar in the modern West, with core commitments to human rights and self-governance implemented by means of varying institutional devices") and from purely authoritarian regimes (which reject the idea of human rights or constraints on leaders' power). He describes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes as (1) authoritarian dominant-party states that (2) impose sanctions (such as libel judgments) against, but do not arbitrarily arrest, political dissidents; (3) permit "reasonably open discussion and criticism of its policies"; (4) hold "reasonably free and fair elections", without systemic intimidation, but "with close attention to such matters as the drawing of election districts and the creation of party lists to ensure as best it can that it will prevail—and by a substantial margin"; (5) reflect at least occasional responsiveness to public opinion; and (6) create "mechanisms to ensure that the amount of dissent does not exceed the level it regards as desirable." Tushnet cites Singapore as an example of an authoritarian constitutionalist state, and connects the concept to that of hybrid regimes.

Economy

Scholars such as Seymour Lipset, Carles Boix, Susan Stokes, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Stephens and John Stephens argue that economic development increases the likelihood of democratization. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi argue that while economic development makes democracies less likely to turn authoritarian, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that development causes democratization (turning an authoritarian state into a democracy).

Eva Bellin argues that under certain circumstances the bourgeoise and labor are more likely to favor democratization, but less so under other circumstances. Economic development can boost public support for authoritarian regimes in the short-to-medium term.

According to Michael Albertus, most land reform programs tend to be implemented by authoritarian regimes that subsequently withhold property rights from the beneficiaries of the land reform. Authoritarian regimes do so to gain coercive leverage over rural populations.

Institutions

Within authoritarian systems, there may be nominally democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures and elections, but they are managed in a way so as to entrench authoritarian regimes. Within democracies, parties serve to coordinate the pursuit of interests for like-minded citizens, whereas in authoritarian systems, they are a way for authoritarian leaders to find capable elites for the regime. In a democracy, a legislature is intended to represent the diversity of interests among citizens, whereas authoritarians use legislatures to signal their own restraint towards other elites as well as to monitor other elites who pose a challenge to the regime.

Fraudulent elections may serve the role of signaling the strength of the regime (to deter elites from challenging the regime) and forcing other elites to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime. By contrast, in democracies, free and fair elections are used to select representatives who represent the will of the citizens. Elections may also motivate authoritarian party members to strengthen patron–client and information-gathering networks, which strengthens the authoritarian regime. Elections may also motivate members of the ruling class to provide public goods.

According to a 2018 study, most party-led dictatorships regularly hold popular elections. Prior to the 1990s, most of these elections had no alternative parties or candidates for voters to choose. Since the end of the Cold War, about two-thirds of elections in authoritarian systems allow for some opposition, but the elections are structured in a way to heavily favor the incumbent authoritarian regime.

Hindrances to free and fair elections in authoritarian systems may include:

Control of the media by the authoritarian incumbents.
Interference with opposition campaigning.
Electoral fraud.
Violence against opposition.
Large-scale spending by the state in favor of the incumbents.
Permitting of some parties, but not others.
Prohibitions on opposition parties, but not independent candidates.
Allowing competition between candidates within the incumbent party, but not those who are not in the incumbent party.
Interactions with other elites and the masses

The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts. Authoritarian rule entails a balancing act whereby the ruler has to maintain the support of other elites (frequently through the distribution of state and societal resources) and the support of the public (through distribution of the same resources): the authoritarian rule is at risk if the balancing act is lopsided, as it risks a coup by the elites or an uprising by the mass public.

Manipulation of Information

According to a 2019 study by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, authoritarian regimes have over time become less reliant on violence and mass repression to maintain control. The study shows instead that authoritarians have increasingly resorted to manipulation of information as a means of control. Authoritarians increasingly seek to create an appearance of good performance, conceal state repression, and imitate democracy.

Systemic Weakness and Resilience

Andrew J. Nathan notes that "regime theory holds that authoritarian systems are inherently fragile because of weak legitimacy, overreliance on coercion, over-centralization of decision making, and the predominance of personal power over institutional norms. ... Few authoritarian regimes—be they communist, fascist, corporatist, or personalist—have managed to conduct orderly, peaceful, timely, and stable successions."

Political scientist Theodore M. Vestal writes that authoritarian political systems may be weakened through inadequate responsiveness to either popular or elite demands and that the authoritarian tendency to respond to challenges by exerting tighter control, instead of by adapting, may compromise the legitimacy of an authoritarian state and lead to its collapse.

One exception to this general trend is the endurance of the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party which has been unusually resilient among authoritarian regimes. Nathan posits that this can be attributed to four factors such as (1) "the increasingly norm-bound nature of its succession politics"; (2) "the increase in meritocratic as opposed to factional considerations in the promotion of political elites"; (3) "the differentiation and functional specialization of institutions within the regime"; and (4) "the establishment of institutions for political participation and appeal that strengthen the CCP's legitimacy among the public at large."

Violence

Yale University political scientist Milan Svolik argues that violence is a common characteristic of authoritarian systems. Violence tends to be common in authoritarian states because of a lack of independent third parties empowered to settle disputes between the dictator, regime allies, regime soldiers and the masses.

Authoritarians may resort to measures referred to as coup-proofing (structures that make it hard for any small group to seize power). Coup-proofing strategies include strategically placing family, ethnic, and religious groups in the military; creating of an armed force parallel to the regular military; and developing multiple internal security agencies with overlapping jurisdiction that constantly monitor one another. Research shows that some coup-proofing strategies reduce the risk of coups occurring. However, coup-proofing reduces military effectiveness, and limits the rents that an incumbent can extract. A 2016 study shows that the implementation of succession rules reduce the occurrence of coup attempts. Succession rules are believed to hamper coordination efforts among coup plotters by assuaging elites who have more to gain by patience than by plotting. According to political scientists Curtis Bell and Jonathan Powell, coup attempts in neighbouring countries lead to greater coup-proofing and coup-related repression in a region. A 2017 study finds that countries' coup-proofing strategies are heavily influenced by other countries with similar histories. A 2018 study in the Journal of Peace Research found that leaders who survive coup attempts and respond by purging known and potential rivals are likely to have longer tenures as leaders. A 2019 study in Conflict Management and Peace Science found that personalist dictatorships are more likely to take coup-proofing measures than other authoritarian regimes; the authors argue that this is because "personalists are characterized by weak institutions and narrow support bases, a lack of unifying ideologies and informal links to the ruler."

According to a 2019 study, personalist dictatorships are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship.

Typologies

Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others. 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.

Bureaucratic-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." 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 South Korea under Park Chung-hee.

According to Barbara Geddes, there are seven typologies of authoritarian regimes: dominant party regimes, military regime, personalist regimes, monarchies, oligarchic regimes, indirect military regimes, or hybrids of the first three.

Subtypes of authoritarian regimes identified by Linz are corporatist or organic-statistic, racial and ethnic "democracy" and post-totalitarian.

Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatism institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups." This type has been studied most extensively in Latin America.

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.

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." Examples include the Russian Federation and Soviet Eastern Bloc states in the mid-1980s. The post-Mao Zedong People's Republic of China was viewed as post-totalitarian in the 1990s and early 2000s, with a limited degree of increase in pluralism and civil society. however, in the 2010s, particularly after Xi Jinping succeeded as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and rose to power in 2012, Chinese state repression sharply increased, aided by digital control and mass surveillance.

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 institutions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." Examples include Argentina under Juan Perón, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.

A typology of authoritarian regimes by political scientists Brian Lai and Dan Slater includes four categories: machine (oligarchic party dictatorships); bossism (autocratic party dictatorships); juntas (oligarchic military dictatorships); and strongman (autocratic military dictatorships). Lai and Slater argue that single‐party regimes are better than military regimes at developing institutions (e.g. mass mobilization, patronage networks ad coordination of elites) that are effective at continuing the regime's incumbency and diminishing domestic challengers; Lai and Slater also argue that military regimes more often initiate military conflicts or undertake other "desperate measures" to maintain control as compared to single‐party regimes.

John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.

Authoritarianism and Democracy

Authoritarianism and democracy are not necessarily fundamental opposites as it is possible for some democracies to possess authoritarian elements, and for an authoritarian system to have democratic elements. Authoritarian regimes may also be partly responsive to citizen grievances, although this is generally only regarding grievances that do not undermine the stability of the regime. An illiberal democracy, or procedural democracy, is distinguished from liberal democracy, or substantive democracy, in that illiberal democracies lack features such as the rule of law, protections for minority groups, an independent judiciary and the real separation of powers.

A further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another; research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few wars (sometimes called militarized interstate disputes) causing fewer battle deaths with one another and that democracies have far fewer civil wars.

Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. Those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies. Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption and that parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.

A 2006 study by economist Alberto Abadie has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most and least democratic nations, and that "transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy may be accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism." Studies in 2013 and 2017 similarly found a nonlinear relationship between political freedom and terrorism, with the most terrorist attacks occurring in partial democracies and the fewest in "strict autocracies and full-fledged democracies." A 2018 study by Amichai Magen demonstrated that liberal democracies and polyarchies not only suffer fewer terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, but also suffer fewer casualties in terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, which may be attributed to higher-quality democracies' responsiveness to their citizens' demands, including "the desire for physical safety", resulting in "investment in intelligence, infrastructure protection, first responders, social resilience, and specialized medical care" which averts casualties. Magen also stated that terrorism in closed autocracies sharply increased starting in 2013.

Competitive Authoritarian Regimes

Another type of authoritarian regime is the competitive authoritarian regime, a type of civilian regime that arose in the post-Cold War era. In a competitive authoritarian regime, "formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but ... incumbents' abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents." The term was coined by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way in their 2010 book of the same name to discuss a type of hybrid regime that emerged during and after the Cold War.

Competitive authoritarian regimes differ from fully authoritarian regimes in that elections are regularly held, the opposition can openly operate without a high risk of exile or imprisonment and "democratic procedures are sufficiently meaningful for opposition groups to take them seriously as arenas through which to contest for power." Competitive authoritarian regimes lack one or more of the three characteristics of democracies such as free elections (i.e. elections untainted by substantial fraud or voter intimidation); protection of civil liberties (i.e. the freedom of speech, press and association) and an even playing field (in terms of access to resources, the media and legal recourse).

Authoritarianism and Fascism

Authoritarianism is considered a core concept of fascism and scholars agree that a fascist regime is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. While authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascism, scholars argue that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

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. 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:

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

(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control and often maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable function to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.

Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life and asphyxiates it." Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature." Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.

Economic Effects

The effects of political regime types on economic growth have been debated by scholars. A 1993 assessment of existing scholarship led Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi to conclude, "we do not know whether democracy fosters or hinders economic growth." In 2010, Dani Rodrik wrote that democracies outperform autocracies in terms of long-term economic growth, economic stability, adjustments to external economic shocks, human capital investment, and economic equality. A 2019 study by Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson found that democracy increases GDP per capita by about 20 percent over the long-term. According to Amartya Sen, no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.

Scholars have identified that autocracies may have an advantage when it comes to rapid industrialization. Seymour Martin Lipset argued that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies that gives authoritarian regimes an advantage in economic development. By contrast, Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism, pointing out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes (such as refugee crises) than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties in democracies act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable than authoritarian regimes.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

What is Democracy?

The word democracy has been applied, rightly or wrongly, to states of all types, from the “Democratic People’s Republic” of North Korea to the freest polities in Scandinavia. A December 2021 joint op-ed by the Russian and Chinese ambassadors to the United States called both of their dictatorships “democratic.” Misappropriation of the word is a testament to democracy's widespread appeal. Yet this unfortunate practice has generated confusion, allowing opponents to simultaneously claim democratic credentials and argue that actual democracies are ineffective or hypocritical.

Moreover, it has contributed to a misperception that all democracy requires is the regular performance of elections.

Democracy means more than just majority rule, however:

it is a governing system based on the will and consent of the governed, institutions that are accountable to all citizens, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights.
It is a network of mutually reinforcing structures in which those exercising power are subject to checks both within and outside the state, for example, from independent courts, an independent press, and civil society.
It requires an openness to alternations in power, with rival candidates or parties competing fairly to govern for the good of the public as a whole, not just themselves or those who voted for them.
It creates a level playing field so that all people, no matter the circumstances of their birth or background, can enjoy the universal human rights to which they are entitled and participate in politics and governance.

Democracy is also more than just an ideal. It is a practical engine of self-correction and improvement that empowers people to constantly, peacefully struggle toward that ideal. When one part of the system falters, the others can be used as tools to repair and strengthen it. This unique and inherent capacity for self-correction is what makes democracy so successful at delivering long-term stability and prosperity. No democracy in the real world is perfect, and those demanding democracy in places like Cuba and Hong Kong are not demanding perfection. What they desire are the freedoms and the institutions that will allow them to create a better life and a more just society over time.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule

Authoritarianism

In politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people. The term authoritarianism is often used to denote any form of government that is not democratic, but studies have demonstrated that there is a great deal of variation in authoritarian rule.

Contents

Totalitarian and Fascist Regimes

The most notable authoritarian regimes of the 20th century were characterized by a charismatic leader, a mass party, and a powerful secret police force. Regimes that use state institutions to brainwash and completely control their populations are categorized as totalitarian. Totalitarian regimes aim to instill in their citizens an undying loyalty to the regime and its leader. Children are indoctrinated from a young age, learning about the heroics of their leaders and the superiority of the regime’s guiding ideology. No dissent is tolerated, and all of the opposition is either exiled, killed, or imprisoned. Political trust is low, as citizens are encouraged to spy on each other and to serve as informants for the regime.

Totalitarian regimes are also especially brutal. The Cambodian regime of Pol Pot, for example, killed up to 30 percent of the country’s population, or about 2.8 million people. In Ukraine in 1931–34, some 4 million people died of starvation in a famine created and prolonged by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Totalitarianism also aptly describes the Soviet-dominated regimes in eastern Europe during the Cold War, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Myanmar (Burma) under Gen. U Ne Win (1962–88) and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC; 1988–2011).

Fascism is conceptually difficult to define but represents a highly militaristic and hyper-nationalistic form of rule. Fascist regimes resemble totalitarian systems in their mobilization of the public under a mass political party and their glorification of a heroic leader. In contrast to totalitarian systems, however, fascist regimes tend to enforce a rigid social hierarchy, and the level of government control over society as a whole is not as pervasive.

Like totalitarian systems, fascist regimes have been born of turbulent periods and crises. Both Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, for example, rose to power by exploiting a volatile political environment in which the political left had been gaining traction. The German American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt argued in the Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that totalitarian styles of rule, which she understood to encompass fascist regimes, arise in capitalist societies that have experienced social alienation resulting from the rigours of economic individualism.

Personalistic Dictatorships

Despite these notable cases in history, there are very few contemporary instances of fully totalitarian or fascist rule. Many authoritarian regimes in the 20th century did not possess the ability to completely control their societies, and interesting regional patterns emerged. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, there has been only one totalitarian dictatorship (in Eritrea) to date. Nevertheless, most African regimes have been highly personalistic, such as those of Mobutu Sese Seko (Joseph Mobutu) in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Idi Amin of Uganda. Personalistic dictatorships are characterized by leaders who exercise nearly absolute power. The other institutions of the state are severely weakened and exist more or less in name only. The judiciary takes direct orders from the dictator, and the legislature, which is dominated by the leader’s party, acts as a rubber stamp. In many cases the dictator does not even pretend to follow constitutional procedures and rules by decree. The military in such regimes is “coup-proofed,” or deliberately weakened, so that it poses no threat to the leader’s power. All of the other organs of the state are dependent on the dictator and may even report to the dictator directly.

Because there are no checks on the dictator’s power, these types of regimes are plagued by high levels of corruption and kleptocracy. In some cases, the dictator has stolen billions from the state—as Mobutu was notoriously noted for doing. These types of regimes have tended to arise in countries that are very poor and have weak governmental institutions that are easy to exploit and further debilitate.

An exception to this generalization is the personalistic dictatorship of Vladmir Putin of Russia. Because Russia is awash in valuable energy and industrial resources such as oil and natural gas and because it maintains a large military, Putin occupies a prominent position on the world stage. Supported by a group of security and military leaders known as the siloviki, Putin makes decisions with little consultation from experts and faces little if any opposition from economic and political elites. As have other personalistic dictators who lack a solid group of advisers, Putin has engaged in high-risk behaviour, notably including Russia’s military invasions of Ukraine beginning in 2014 and 2022.

Military Juntas

During the second half of the 20th century, many Latin American countries—including Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay—were led by military juntas. Military regimes are normally transient styles of rule, because national militaries generally prefer to step down from power and go back to the barracks rather than see their organization become politicized and vulnerable to internal splits. The military often prioritizes unity and legitimacy in the eyes of the public rather than indefinite rule. However, some military juntas have held power for long periods and have felt strongly that they were best able to lead the country. Support for military rule often comes from the middle and upper classes in countries in which there are high levels of economic inequality. In these instances, the military steps in to defend the status quo for the wealthy, which fears that more impoverished communities would contest inequality in democratic systems. The military also typically cites civilian incompetence and corruption as key reasons for why they should take power.

Single-Party Authoritarianism

During the Cold War, most national governments in eastern Europe and some in Asia were led by a single political party. In many cases these regimes evolved into totalitarian systems that exercised total control over their societies. In other cases, the role of the secret police was more relaxed, and citizens did not face constant surveillance.

Single-party regimes are led by a hegemonic party with a strong grip on power. Although only one leader is officially in charge, many political elites must work together to form and execute governmental policies. Classic examples of single-party rulers include the Chinese Communist Party, the Vietnamese Communist Party, and the People’s Action Party of Singapore. Studies have noted that single-party systems tend to perform much better in terms of economic growth and development than personalistic or military-junta systems. The emphasis on consensus in policy making ensures that policy output is not erratic or predicated on the whims of the dictator.

Monarchical Authoritarianism

Uniquely, the Middle East remains a sea of monarchical forms of rule. Although a few of these monarchies have been overturned in revolutions (such as in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Libya), many of them remain. Monarchies were implemented in the Middle East by design. European colonial powers viewed monarchy as a stable form of rule that was best suited for nation building. Inspiration was also drawn from the traditional dynastic forms of rule that dotted the region. Monarchies are led by a ruling family and operate in ways similar to those of a single-party regime, with many individuals participating in the discussion, consultation, and decision-making processes. For this reason, the policy output of monarchies has tended to be predictable as well, making monarchies—like single-party regimes—one of the most durable forms of rule. During the Arab Spring beginning in 2010–11, for example, the republics in Libya, Yemen, and Egypt were all overturned, while the monarchies faced protests but never wavered.

The stability of authoritarian rule in the Middle East led to studies searching for explanations of how regimes that have a relatively well-off population are able to prevent the rise of a disgruntled middle class pushing for democratic rights and representation. The answer for some scholars was the regimes’ possession of certain valuable natural resources, which resulted in huge “rents.” Rents constitute revenues that go directly to a government without the need for stimulating productivity or collecting taxes. They include foreign aid and funds from the sale of natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and kimberlite diamonds. Many oil-rich countries use oil rents to pay off elites and the public, thereby ensuring that they remain apolitical. Instead of investing in citizens, taxing them, and representing their interests, the regime effectively co-opts them. Oil revenues in particular have been used to strengthen the state’s repressive institutions, thereby ensuring that there are no challenges to the status quo.

Authoritarian Decline and Resurgence

But not all states have had sufficient sources of revenue at their disposal to keep their citizens happy. The economic failures of communist regimes in eastern Europe and the eventual inability of the Soviet Union to prop them up with military and financial aid led to their collapse in 1989–91. With the end of the Cold War, many other authoritarian regimes also fell, and some political scientists optimistically predicted that authoritarianism might become obsolete. A few decades earlier, the growth of an educated middle class, along with pressure from students and organized labour, led to an increase in the number of democracies during what the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington (1927–2008) referred to as the “Third Wave.” Additional weak autocracies collapsed when they ceased to receive financial support from either of the two superpowers. Democratic values diffused around many parts of the world, and there was a widely shared impression that democracy had triumphed.

Nevertheless, within a few decades, it was apparent that this optimistic assessment had been misguided. Following the global financial crisis of 2007–08, not only did authoritarian regimes become more assertive, but many democracies began to revert to authoritarian practices. Harkening back to Arendt’s analysis, political scientists noticed that a backlash against globalization-induced economic and social dislocation was leading to a renewal of authoritarianism. Individuals who felt displaced or faced unemployment, inflation, and debt were susceptible to the rhetoric and appeal of authoritarian styles of leadership, particularly of the populist variety.

Authoritarian Populism

Surprisingly, this appeal of authoritarianism took place not only in regimes that had experienced autocracy in the past but also in consolidated democracies. One of the biggest drivers of autocratization was authoritarian populist leadership. Authoritarian populism is a style of leadership that uses anti-elitist and highly divisive nativist rhetoric to garner political support. The leader then uses this support as a pretext to undermine democratic institutions. For much of the 20th century, many national governments in Latin America alternated regularly between military rule and authoritarian populism. Today, as in the past, authoritarian populist leaders rise to power through elections but then deliberately create direct linkages with the public at the expense of other national institutions. By circumventing the state and directly connecting with and distributing goods to their supporters, populist leaders cause such institutions to decay.

Populist authoritarian forms of rule tend to emerge in contexts where institutions of representation have already ossified. When parties are no longer able to make people feel as though their voices are being heard, and when elites appear too removed from society, citizens may search for authoritarian alternatives that promise to directly and quickly solve all of their problems. Once the authoritarian populists have taken power, they use their democratic mandate to justify a series of restrictions on democratic forms of governance. Democratic institutions (such as referenda) are used to greatly extend the ruler’s term of office, as happened in Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or to eliminate term limits altogether, as happened in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Although these types of leaders are democratically elected, once they refuse to leave office, they are bona fide autocrats.

The perverse use of democratic institutions to maintain authoritarianism has become increasingly common in post-Cold War autocracies. Almost all authoritarian regimes today hold elections, but the playing field is not level, and there is little doubt who will win. Fewer regimes now hold staged elections resulting in victories by absurd margins, as when Tunisia’s Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali allegedly won a third term in 1999 with 99 percent of the vote. More often, the dictator allows the opposition to have some false hope in order to create a facade of democratic rule. A case in point is Venezuela, where Nicolás Maduro allowed the opposition to garner nearly one-third of the vote in the 2018 presidential election. In most authoritarian regimes a token opposition is allowed to exist, but many opposition members are imprisoned, harassed, co-opted, or divided. Voters are also exposed to disinformation about opposition candidates to ensure an incumbent victory.

Mechanisms of Authoritarian Rule

Although most authoritarian regimes have drafted a constitution, they do not allow their citizens many freedoms, either on paper or in practice. People might be free to voice their opinions on nonsensitive issues, but many topics are barred from being openly addressed. Doing so typically results in harsh repercussions for those who allegedly endanger or weaken national security.

The space in which civil society may operate is also severely curtailed. Instead of barring civil society outright, there are rules and regulations for what civil organizations can do and where they can get their funding. In many cases, civil organizations that receive foreign funding must register with the state and are monitored for any suspicious activity.

The press is another target of authoritarian regimes. Although it is not usually completely owned by the state, journalists and media outlets face limits on what they can say and how critical of the government they can be. The failure to respect such boundaries can result in imprisonment, harassment, threats, fines, or revocation of operating licenses. In other cases, the regime simply ensures that major media outlets are captured by cronies—who are willing to supply pro-regime content—as in Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Authoritarian regimes today also incorporate legislatures, political parties, and judiciaries, but those institutions do not have much power, if any. A legislature may exist, but it is filled with political lackeys who never vote against the leader. While it is true that what are called “electoral autocracies” allow some opposition within legislatures or a limited level of judicial independence, such practices are usually just a democratic facade designed to maintain the regime’s domestic and international legitimacy.

In Egypt, for example, the parliament was repeatedly dissolved following the overthrow of Pres. Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and remained either inactive or agreeable to the president’s decisions. Egyptian Pres. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who was first elected in 2014, initially held power without a parliament, and within one year of his election he had issued more than 100 decrees. Although a new parliament was in session by 2016, it subsequently did little legislating.

Although there are judges and courts in authoritarian regimes, they are not independent of the executive. In a practice sometimes referred to as “telephone law,” autocrats simply tell judges, sometimes literally via telephone, how to preside over politically sensitive cases. Broadly speaking, telephone law is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that allows wealthy and powerful individuals to bypass conventional rules and regulations in order to obtain what they want. In the case of Russia, this form of injustice is rooted in the country’s culture and history and has proven difficult to erase.

The Appeal of Authoritarian Rule

Most countries have had less experience with democracy than with autocracy. Scholars of socialization have argued that the experience of living through autocracy has had a profound impact on support for democracy after authoritarian rule. Children who grow up in autocracies learn about the benefits of authoritarian rule and are exposed to authoritarian learning styles that shun critical thinking in favour of rote memorization. Thus, growing up in an authoritarian regime would make a citizen yearn for strong leadership and be more amenable to nondemocratic forms of rule.

In the early 21st century, survey research in Russia found that nearly 60 percent of all adults took a positive view of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, while only about 20 percent held a similar opinion of the reforming president Mikhail Gorbachev—this in spite of the fact that under Stalin more than one million Russians were executed, and millions of others died as a result of forced labour, deportation, and famine.

Psychological studies have also tried to make sense of why authoritarian forms of rule may be so appealing. In the 1950s a group of scholars led by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno published The Authoritarian Personality, which argues that some people exhibit personality traits that make them amenable to authoritarian rule. These characteristics include a general willingness to submit to authority, a rigid cognitive style, conventional moral values, and an aggressive attitude toward out-groups and those whose behaviour is perceived to be deviant. Although the studies on which Adorno’s work was based suffered from methodological problems regarding the measurement of personality traits, the idea that individual personality is relevant to support for authoritarianism has gained some ground among social psychologists and other researchers. Again, although it is difficult to measure, some citizens seem to display more risk aversion than others, whether the aversion arises from personality, parental socialization, educational socialization, or exposure to economic and political crises or conflicts. Risk-averse citizens are more likely to lean toward the consistency, security, and stability of authoritarian styles of rule rather than toward the perceived “chaos” of democracy.

Digital Authoritarianism

Authoritarian regimes in the 21st century have tapped into the fears of citizens in new and old democracies, posing a massive threat to democratic systems. Since the 2010s the world has witnessed a rise in “digital authoritarianism,” or the use of information technology by an authoritarian regime to sustain or augment its power by misleading, confusing, or distracting the country’s population and by blocking access to information from sources that the regime cannot control. In addition, Russia and other authoritarian countries have used the Internet to spread disinformation (see propaganda) designed to widen political divisions within democratic countries and to undermine public faith and trust in democratic institutions. Arguably the most effective and consequential of such efforts was Russia’s digitally mounted interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, which aimed at discrediting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and at broadening the appeal of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, who unexpectedly won the election.

Few countries have been able to maintain a system of digital authoritarianism as sophisticated and technologically advanced as that of China. At the turn of the 21st century, China began work on a digital infrastructure that would prevent its citizens from accessing information that could destabilize its government. Known outside China as the Chinese Firewall (and inside China as the Golden Shield), the infrastructure incorporated a centralized system of Internet traffic choke points that enabled the government to prevent domestic Internet users from accessing websites based in other countries and to limit access to Chinese websites by foreign Internet users. Platforms such as Twitter, Google, Facebook, and YouTube, as well as virtual private networks, were all blocked by the Chinese Firewall.

The threats of authoritarian rule to democracies are substantial. Most people live in nondemocratic systems. Nevertheless, although there has been a resurgence of authoritarianism in many countries, these changes are not likely to be permanent. Autocratic regimes have become savvier in many ways, but their leaders’ constant efforts to protect their power at the public’s expense often lead them to take risks that can result in their downfall.

Returning to the example of Russia, Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been noted for the poor performance of the Russian military, which has suffered from defective intelligence, poor organization, and incompetent leadership. Putin had earlier purged the upper ranks of the Russian military to coup-proof his regime, an action that may prove to have disastrous consequences for Russia’s war effort. Only time will tell if it also leads to Putin’s downfall.

Natasha Lindstaedt
https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism

17 Advantages & Disadvantages of Authoritarian Government

0 - Introduction

Authoritarianism is a government structure which offers a strong, centralized power and limited political freedoms for the general population. Any rights that are given to the individual are subordinate to what the state’s demands happen to be at any given time. This structure also requires no legal or constitutional accountability for any actions taken, as the rule of law can shift according to the needs of the government.

The regimes which use an authoritarian government can be autocratic, or they can choose to spread out the power through multiple institutions and officials. According to Juan Linz, there are four specific qualities that must be present for there to be an authoritarian structure ruling over society.

There must be limited political pluralism so that constraints are on groups and political institutions.

Legitimacy for the government is based on emotion to ensure that the regime can counter enemies of the people, insurgency, and under-development.

Minimal social mobilization because of suppression and constraints placed on the general public.

Executive powers are vast, vague, and shifting while remaining informally defined.

It is possible for leaders to have authoritarian traits without actually having this form of government. The wave of populism that began in 2016 worked to put a number of political figures in power around the world, including the Trump Administration, who display these traits in some format frequently.

These are the advantages and disadvantages of authoritarian government structures to consider.

Nine Advantages of Authoritarian Government

1 - It has the capacity to produce consistent results nationwide.

Authoritarian leaders work hard to create solutions that benefit everyone in their working group because any success that happens is credited to them. There are no leadership voids that take place because this leader can move the government structures to where they need to be. The directions that are given by the person in charge can then be implemented to create measurable results over time.

An authoritarian government can thrive when it has the chance to provide task assignments, create certain deadlines, and provide control through consistent application across the country. Even if some the actions are fear-based or potentially unnecessary, leaders who are seen taking action will often be praised for their efforts.

2 - Saves time during the decision-making process.

Authoritarian governments work from a centralized system where there is one person or a legislative group responsible for the decisions that get made. Because there are fewer steps involved in the process of creating laws or distributing resources, you will find faster movement and implementation of ideas available using this structure. These leaders do not need to consult with other people to make their decisions, which is exceptionally useful in moments when emergency situations arise.

By removing much of the bureaucracy, authoritarian governments seek to eliminate a lot of the waste that can occur in other governing systems.

3 - Places pressure of making a choice on the shoulders of the leader.

The world can be a very stressful place for a variety of reasons. When pressure begins to mount on the general population, then the authoritarian government can come to the rescue of society. This structure works to put people into the best possible positions where their strengths can become an asset to the government. If you want to hold a job and this is the government option in your country, then there is an excellent chance that you will have employment.

Unlike socialist or Communist structures that can mandate employment because of community needs, authoritarian governments allow you to see the risks involved with each task. They put people into positions where the most consistent results become possible. You are more likely to find specialized positions with this option compared to other governing styles.

4 - Creates results which are more consistent.

Authoritarian leaders create specific instructions for the government and society to follow, and then creates a structure which ensures the processes are implemented correctly. This leadership style operates through a clearly defined chain-of-command that creates effective data movement that begins from the centralized structure of the government. Although the quality of the result depends on the experience of the leader, it is possible for this method to achieve results without personal knowledge of a specific task because the governing officials have the power to appoint someone into place.

5 - Creates more clarity within the government hierarchy.

An authoritarian government creates a clear leadership structure where there is one specific person or group in charge of everything. It is not like the American government where there are three separate branches that create a series of checks-and-balances that are used to maintain consistency. It is the responsibility of the leader to create balance in society instead.

This structure reduces the opportunities that other politicians may have in taking over the government for their personal purposes. Advisors will often provide suggestions to the leader when there are decisions that must be made, but it will always be the leader(s) who have the final say in what happens with this system of government.

6 - Works to reduce economic equality throughout society.

In an authoritarian government, the only households which tend to see their wealth grow from their employment or actions are those who hold high-level government positions. Many governments using this structure will work to restrict the net worth for most parties even when private ownership exists. That outcome occurs because the goal is to make sure that all parties receives similar access to everything they need in life. Instead of experiencing the growing inequality of the top 1% of income earners as you do in the United States today, you would see consistent levels of taxation and opportunity at all levels, progressing higher based on income.

7 - Reduces the amount of duplication that occurs in the supply chain.

The authoritarian government strives to become as efficient as possible when distributing or producing goods and services for consumption. It creates an advantage in this situation because the government creates a centralized control over everything that is offered to consumers. Even if there is a free market system in place, this system of governing places pressure on industries and specific businesses to create the results that they want.

Reuters reported in March 2019 that President Donald Trump tweeted that he wanted the CEO of General Motors to do something to reopen the manufacturing facility in Lordstown, Ohio, that was idled due to changing business circumstances. “I am not happy that it is closed when everything else in our Country is BOOMING,” Trump said. By placing pressure on specific people, this government seek to reduce duplication without creating a completely centralized economy.

8 - Stops the threat of a business obtaining a monopoly.

The goal of an authoritarian government is to create a public, centralized power. It is not unusual for this structure to work with a mixed economy to ensure that there are still private ownership opportunities. What you will see with this advantage is the imposition of pricing restrictions on specific commodities and services. Instead of declaring that specific goods and services be sold at a dictated price, this government structure allows subsidies to reduce the cost to consumers while providing an income resource for producers. Since taxpayers help to fund these programs, the costs are simply directed through different budget lines to create results.

9 - Provides an increase in productivity.

Authoritarian governments can help to push manufacturing and agricultural activities to new levels thanks to this unique approach. It works to create a clear process for everyone to follow from the centralized mechanisms of the governing process. Leaders can provide specific rules that quickly filter to their subordinates, declaring how to complete specific tasks according to the internal best practices developed. Then the government requires through legislation that all parties follow these rules under the threat of fines or worse, which then boosts productivity until the fear of reprisal wears off.

Eight Disadvantages of Authoritarian Government

1 - Authoritarian governments want to stay in power indefinitely.

The goal of an authoritarian government is the same as any other form of dictatorship that exists in the world today. It has the top priority of keeping the leadership in charge of governing while they work to build policies that reflect what they want to see for the overall economy. These actions are often done with good intentions, but the end result usually causes someone to be hurt by the changes made.

It is not unusual for the various changes made in each community to be politically motivated as well. Even if the benefits of change would only apply to a small minority of the population, authoritarians will invest resources to make such an effort if it will reinforce their position with their support base.

2 - Authoritarian governments invite rebellion in society.

There is a reason why corporate managers who are seen as being authoritarian are routinely viewed by their staff as being controlling, bossy, and micromanagers. This dictatorial style creates rebellion when it comes from the government because there is little that the general population can do to stop the changes from happening. It is not unusual for the legislation passed by this centralized government structure to tell people how to live, what to think, and how to work.

An authoritarian government can then decide that any failures in the implementation of policy are the fault of the average person, holding everyone else responsible for the outcomes achieved. This form of governing is quick to take credit when things go great, but it is fast to shift the blame if something goes wrong.

3 - Authoritarian governments often rule emotionally instead of logically.

There is a time and place for emotion in government, just as there is a need to be logical with decision-making skills as well. Humans are almost incapable of making any decision without the presence of emotion. The problem with an authoritarian government is that there are high levels of insecurity put on display by the leadership core. Any perceived insult brings the weight of the government down on individuals who may have nothing to do with the situation.

When the leadership of an authoritarian government starts making decisions based on their gut instinct instead of the facts which are around them, then it becomes easier to initiate unwanted conflicts with others. If those circumstances are allowed to fester, this disadvantage could eventually lead to war.

4 - Authoritarian governments can impair societal morale.

The average person tends to work more productively and with higher quality when they understand that their contributions make a positive impact. An authoritarian government can be a beneficial resource to have if the efforts of the leadership communicate the importance of what a person does to earn a living. If the opposite occurs, then it can cause the rest of society to turn against that person.

President Trump frequently rails against the press being “enemies of the people.” He has sometimes qualified that remark as referring to media personalities who purposely spread what he calls “fake news.” The reality of these comments hits home for local news journalists who have items thrown at their vans, hateful words left on their social media page, and worse. It even applies to blog writers, marketing copywriters, and anyone else that someone sees as being a journalist or “elitist” in some fashion.

An authoritarian government does an excellent job at rallying their support base to keep their support levels high. This effort always comes at the cost of dividing society in some way.

5 - Authoritarian governments often rule without feedback.

When there is a significant decision to be made in a community, most governments rely on a system of public feedback to determine if the choice is one worth making. You will see this on display with zoning changes, license issuing, and community planning projects all of the time. When there is an authoritarian government in place, then you will see this disadvantage occur frequently.

Authoritarians don’t like to receive feedback, nor do they want to offer it. At a March 11 public comment period in Seattle, Richard Schwartz went before the City Council, asking them to pay attention to what he had to say. He was limited to 2 minutes per council rules. After making the comment Councilwoman Debora Juarez interrupted him and said, “Sir, you’re on a two-minute timer here – so let’s go.” Because of this lack of feedback, it is very easy for those in the government to become disconnected from those who are not part of it.

6 - Authoritarian governments create higher levels of societal churn.

When people feel like they are giving everything that they can to better their country, economy, and society, then they will continue to look for new challenges. They will use their drive to keep seeking out their next dream. Authoritarian governments can get in the way of this process by legislating limits on what people can do with their lives. When there is no way to push forward and the hierarchy of the government prevents an opportunity to build new hope, then the amount of churn that happens can be quite extensive.

Churn in the business world means that employees decide to quit their job to find employment somewhere else – even at a lower pay rate if necessary. When it applies to society, this issue causes people to eventually leave as well. They get tired of trying to fight for their homeland, so they decide to live somewhere new.

7 - Authoritarian governments rely on the experience of their leadership.

The authoritarian government is highly dependent upon the knowledge and expertise of its leader or group to make things happen on a nationwide scale. This means the leader(s) are indispensable to the future that those in charge want to provide for the rest of society. If something should happen to that individual or group which changes their access levels in the government, then it will not function as efficiently as it would otherwise.

It is very easy for an authoritarian government to develop tunnel vision when a country begins to fall behind the standards that the rest of the world can achieve. If there is not enough experience in the hands of the leader to offset that issue, then society can see a steep decline in their way of life because they are listening to their leadership instead of the global data that is available for review.

8 - Authoritarian governments try to create equality in inadequate ways.

For a society to be truly equal, each person must have the same opportunity to achieve success by having a starting point that is the same as every other individual. When an authoritarian government attempts to create more equality, it will typically favor the groups who support their presence before any other. If you find yourself in a minority demographic, then your rights might be sacrificed for the “good of the many.” Even though the purpose might have good intentions here at times, one cannot be defined as successful if they treat others as being inferior.

A Final Thought on Authoritarian Governments

Authoritarian governments on their own are not “good” or “bad” by design.

Their structure works to help those in charge distribute resources, encourage growth, and provide access when needed to provide assistance to the many. The only problem with this approach is that it often comes at the expense of the minority groups in that society. It is much easier to create conflict by pitting the majority who feels ignored with those who receive “special” benefits as a way to stay in power compared to other dictatorial methods.

The problem that you will discover in these authoritarian government pros and cons is that even with all of the potential benefits which are possible, innovation struggles in this structure. Because everything flows from a central structure to the rest of society, it takes more effort to communicate expectations. There isn’t a guarantee that the best practices developed in one region will apply to others.

An authoritarian government assumes that all demographics are essentially the same, which is why it will eventually struggle to find success.

Author Bio - Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

https://connectusfund.org/8-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-authoritarian-government

2018 The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

Pages

Authoritarianism

Our Biggest Fight