Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by
strong central power and limited political freedoms. Juan Linz's influential
1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political
systems by four qualities:
Linz
Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified byLinz Linz
Linz
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-colonialAfrica .
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 Perón and Nasser in Egypt
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. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".
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.
Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." 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." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.
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.
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 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. 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.
Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic, "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has showed that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage" instead. Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth, and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes, than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee crises and financial catastrophes occur in 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.
Prominent economist Amartya Sen has theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.
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.
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.
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.
- limited political pluralism; that is, such
regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures,
political parties and interest groups;
- 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.
- minimal social mobilization most often caused
by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents
and anti-regime activity;
- informally defined executive power with often
vague and shifting powers.
Authoritarian Government and
States
Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by
- 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.
- 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. 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.
- Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in
which corporatism institutions are used extensively by the state to co-opt
and demobilize powerful interest groups"; this type has been studied
most extensively in
- 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
- 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 Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.
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
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. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".
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.
Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." 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." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.
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.
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 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. 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.
Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic, "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has showed that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage" instead. Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth, and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes, than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee crises and financial catastrophes occur in 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.
Prominent economist Amartya Sen has theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment