Government Systems: Authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the concentration of power in a single leader or a small group, often bypassing democratic processes and citizen input. This system can emerge in unstable countries where a power vacuum exists, leading leaders to maintain control through oppressive measures and violence. Authoritarian regimes often promise stability and order in the aftermath of turmoil but may resort to fear tactics to ensure compliance and limit opposition. The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is significant, as totalitarian regimes typically seek to control not only the political sphere but also the social and ideological aspects of life, often allowing for more public participation in governance compared to authoritarian systems.
Historically, countries like Spain under Francisco Franco and Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe exemplify authoritarian rule, where dissent is suppressed and power is fortified through coercive methods. In contrast, other nations, such as Singapore, illustrate a hybrid form of authoritarianism where political control is maintained amidst economic stability and limited opposition. Although authoritarian regimes can be seen as a response to ineffective governance, they continue to pose challenges to democratic ideals, leading to cycles of power shifts that may favor such systems in the absence of effective alternatives. Understanding the complexities of authoritarianism is crucial for grasping the broader dynamics of global governance and societal responses to political power.
Government Systems: Authoritarianism
Authoritarian regimes have existed throughout history in countries around the world and continue to exist in the modern state system. This paper will take an in-depth look at the nature of authoritarian regimes and discuss examples from the post-industrial international community.
Keywords Authoritarian; Legitimization; PAP; Regime; SPDC; Totalitarian
Power & Authority: Authoritarianism
Overview
In the sixteenth century, the Spanish conquistador, Lope de Aguirre, wrote to King Philip II, criticizing the Spanish monarch for his totalitarian regime's oppression of the lower classes. "Look here, King of Spain!" he said. "Do not be cruel and ungrateful to your vassals, because while your father and you stayed in Spain without the slightest bother, your vassals, at the price of their blood and fortune, have given you all the kingdoms and holding you have in these parts" (Mabry, 2008, ¶6).
Four centuries later, Spain was ravaged by civil wars and revolutions, each designed to meet Aguirre's demands by empowering the poor. However, none of the successive regimes ventured far from Philip's manner of governance. Following the Spanish Civil War, Francisco Franco came to power in Spain. Like many before him, Franco embraced his power at the expense of the Spanish people. He created a regime whose control permeated every facet of Spanish life. "I am responsible," he said, "only to God and history." (www.thinkexist.com, 2008).
Authority, Dominance & Government
In the late nineteenth century, Max Weber, the eminent German sociologist, economist and political scientist, offered his view of what he termed the "three types of legitimate authority": rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic rule. The important point that he made was each of these forms of government is legitimized by the people who serve under their regimes. Legitimacy comes through democratic means (such as an election), a traditional transfer of power, or a coup.
Throughout history, coups have often served as the nucleus of authoritarian regimes. In an authoritarian system, the government is run by a single person, or select group of people, who manage the levers of state power without deference to citizens or the sentiments of the international community. Authoritarian leaders often come to power in destabilized nations, filling a power vacuum left by the fall of a previous regime.
In authoritarian governments, legitimacy is a moot point. Upon assuming the mantle of leadership, an authoritarian leader holds onto power by any means at his or her disposal, including violence. Doing so means blocking out all opposition and dissent, sometimes through brutal and oppressive action. As part of their quest for total control (and the repression of their enemies), authoritarians will seek to be involved in virtually every part of society including all levels of government, media and communications, and business and economics.
In many cases, authoritarian governments gain legitimacy on the promise that the chaos that previously existed will be eliminated, i.e. that a "new order" will emerge in place of the previous ineffectual regime. Thereafter, legitimacy is often based on fear: an authoritarian leader may be returned to power out of concern that he or she will create a violent backlash against those who stand opposed to his or her regime.
Then again, some societies, whether because of weariness from longtime strife or ineffectual rule, embrace authoritarian regimes. Further, though they may eventually eject such leadership in favor of democratic governments, some societies may also return to authoritarian rule if they come to perceive democracy as incapable of addressing the nation's issues, or as necessarily plagued by corruption and malfeasance.
Latin America provides a number of examples of such situations. In 2004, tens of thousands of Bolivians took to the streets to call for the democratically elected president, Carlos Mesa, to resign due to corruption and his government's failure to attend to the needs of the poor. Similarly, in the 1990s Peruvians ousted the authoritarian government of Alberto Fujimori, but his successor, Alejandro Toledo, had an 8% approval rating in 2004 as his administration was faced with charges of corruption and negligence. Many observers fear that Bolivia and Peru will continue to turn to authoritarian (Smith, 2004). Others see the fledgling infrastructures that were built after the fall of such figures as Fujimori and Chile's Augusto Pinochet as incapable of dealing with unrest that comes governmental transition. In these circumstances, authoritarian governments, under which law and order are considered paramount, may pose attractive alternatives (Blanco, 2006). In such cases, authoritarian governments may not only be installed legitimately, they may be welcomed, at least in the short term.
Authoritarianism vs. Totalitarianism
An ongoing debate in political science is a question of whether the concept of an authoritarian regime is different from a totalitarian system. Indeed, the two share a number of similarities: centralized leadership, control over media and other non-governmental institutions, and dominance over all facets of government. These types of systems even go beyond the political sphere in attempting to either win the loyalties of the population or wipe out their opponents.
However, there are notable differences between the totalitarian and authoritarian governmental systems. For example, as stated earlier, both seek to gain total control over the hearts and minds of their constituents. However, a number of studies indicate that totalitarian regimes tend to allow greater degrees of political participation than do authoritarian systems. The key in this comparison is the fact that a totalitarian regime is focused not only on total control but also on ensuring that the populace is working toward its continuation. Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, consolidate power at the head of the regime and generally do not seek to involve the citizenry in the political processes, though they may give their citizens some political and social freedoms as long as they are not seen as threatening toward the stability of the governing regime (Democracy Building, 2004).
The differences between the two forms of government can also been seen in the legacies they leave on the citizenry that emerge from them. In one analysis, Riley and Fernandez (2005) compared a formerly authoritarian state, Franco's Spain, with a formerly fascist totalitarian nation, Mussolini's Italy. Before these regimes came into power, Italy and Spain had relatively similar histories of political participation. After the regimes were dismantled, however, the citizens' level of political involvement changed: Italy had significantly higher levels of political participation and voter turnout than did Spain.
The main reason for such a disparity between two seemingly similar cultures and policies (both of which had fallen under the control of repressive, domineering governments) seems to have been the nature of dominating governments which ruled them. In the totalitarian state of Italy, party involvement was a critical element of the regime's efforts to ensure loyalty among the people. Hence, although Mussolini ruled with an iron fist, his commitment to keeping the Italian citizenry in line with his fascist endeavors made the Italian people savvier in political activity. Conversely, Franco's Spanish government was more focused on consolidating leadership within Franco's inner circles. Any political activity outside of what he espoused was greeted with immediate repression. Therefore, when the regime was dismantled, the Spanish people were less likely to participate in the democratic process, simply because they were ill-equipped and inexperienced in such activity (Riley & Fernandez, 2005).
The evidence uncovered in the study of these two national systems provides an interesting point about the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Fascist totalitarian regimes are largely based on ideology (as was the case with Nazi Germany and Maoist China), and as such rely on the involvement of the populace in the political organizations they form to bolster and legitimize their leadership. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes focus on centralizing control around an individual or cadre of leaders. Public political involvement is minimal, except in opposition circles (which are at risk of repression) (Democracy Building, 2004).
While the era of fascism has apparently faded, authoritarian regimes remain prevalent in the post-industrial era. This paper will next turn to a few examples of authoritarian regimes that have survived the changes of the last several decades.
A Leader Who Will Not Resign
In 1980, Robert Mugabe, after 15 years of struggling to transform what was, under British rule since 1923, known as Southern Rhodesia, into the independent state of Zimbabwe, became Prime Minister of a tentative coalition government. Unfortunately, the troubles had only begun for that southern African nation. Mugabe formed an uneasy alliance with Joshua Nkomo, and together they sought to rein in the myriad of opposition forces that threatened to turn the impoverished country onto a road toward civil war. However, during 1982 rumors of an upcoming coup led Mugabe to turn against Nkomo and initiate a brutal repression of the Ndebele people, an ethnic minority in the country. Though he eventually reconciled with Nkomo, over the next two decades Mugabe would continue to consolidate his power, pushing any opposition into the periphery and enhancing his own image as the savior of Zimbabwe. At any turn, Mugabe's forces would put an end to any opposition-led rallies and demonstrations, usually with force (BBC News, 1998).
At the turn of the twenty-first century, after Nkomo's death, the tide seemed to begin to turn against Mugabe's authoritarian rule. His party, the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF), had been losing ground in polls, and in early 2008, the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), reported sizable gains. The presidential election, which took place in March, was hotly contested. Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC candidate, won about 4% more of the vote than Mugabe, though neither candidate received the greater than 50% majority necessary to win the election. Further, the MDC charged Zanu-PF with engaging in tactics meant to intimidate voters and MDC supporters (The Economist, 2008). A fractious coalition government was formed between Tsvangirai and Mugabe, which ruled until 2013, when Mugabe was reelected as president.
A Hybrid Form of Authoritarianism
There are situations in which authoritarian governments exist in stable environments. However, in order to do so, they must allow a modicum of political dissent, lest they fall victim to some form of civil strife.
For example, for more than a century the tiny independent nation of Singapore served as an invaluable port for traders. Geography, as fate would have it, would play a major role in the development of that relatively small port at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. Previously under the British crown, Singapore became part of Malaysia for a brief period in the 1960s before it achieved independence. Its former British ownership and geographic proximity to the many cultures of Malaysia, as well as its largely Chinese population whose chief administrative language is English, left it without a sense of national identity, an important ingredient in the development of a new nation.
Technically, Singapore is a parliamentary republic, with an elected legislature and a president who serves as the chief administrator. However, the party that holds an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Parliament paints a different picture of the political environment in the Republic of Singapore. The People's Action Party (PAP) came into power in 1959 as the new nation's constitution was being drafted. It has held onto that power ever since with very little significant opposition. In the most recent election, PAP won 66% of the vote while the closest opposition party, the Workers' Party, only garnered about 16% (CIA World Factbook, 2008)
The fact that Singapore's port remains an essential part of the nation's economy, relied on by nearly every regional country as a shipping destination, means that the economy has seen great success over the non-recession years. Logically, this success would also mean that viable political opposition against the PAP leadership would be rare, and that any repressive measures against the opposition would be unnecessary. Then again, in a country that was founded on the rule of law and is governed by a party whose primary concern is control, authoritarian characteristics have become manifest.
While incidents of house arrest, disappearance, torture and other forms of brutality that are evident in Zimbabwe are not prevalent in Singapore, the South Asian country has employed other, less over methods, for keeping the opposition at bay and retaining power. Singapore's press, for example, is heavily influenced by the PAP; however, in recent days the party has resorted to using the press' commercial elements as leverage to control what is sent out for public consumption (Cherian, 2007). Similarly, the PAP recently threatened to cut housing subsidies for those who vote for opposition candidates and presented low- and middle-income voters with cash payments immediately before declaring an election (Crispin, 2006).
Conclusions
Few if any political systems seek to install an authoritarian regime. In the case of Spain, the people simply sought to establish a modicum of order after long periods of civil strife. Francisco Franco, for example, looked to undo the seemingly inept leadership of the country's king during the Spanish Civil War for the good of the people. However, his later rule would build on this ideology in a negative way: by seeking to bring order, he installed his government in virtually every aspect of Spanish life to quell any opposition.
Indeed, the primary purpose of the installation of an authoritarian regime is not to unite the people (as is the case for totalitarian systems, which call for public legitimization of their rule) but to control them. This fact represents a fundamental difference between totalitarian and authoritarian governments. In fact, this difference has broad implications for the subjected nations in the eras that follow such dominating regimes.
The era of Franco may be a distant memory for Spaniards, but authoritarian regimes remain in the post-industrial world. Some stem from internal civil conflict, the latent elements of which still loom in the minds of the people as the alternative to the controlling government. Others, as is the case in Singapore, may not come out of civil war, but instead out of need to strengthen an economy and the body politic. Still more, as seen in Latin America, may be reborn in nations that have already experienced and ejected authoritarian regimes only to see the democratic replacements they have installed become corrupt and ineffectual.
Indeed, authoritarian governments have manifested themselves in a variety of forms in nearly every corner of the globe. While not every authoritarian regime has succeeded in permeating every element of society and completely subjugating or eliminating its opposition, there are a number of subtle vehicles by which pre-authoritarian and authoritarian regimes may consolidate and maintain power. If the introduction of traditional liberal democratic systems continues to foster corruption and isolation in developing nations, authoritarian governments may continue to enter power for generations to come.
Terms & Concepts
Authoritarian: Form of government in which power and authority are consolidated around a single leader or cadre thereof.
Legitimization: Political state in which the electorate grants power to the ruling party.
PAP: Singapore ruling party ("People's Action Party")
Regime: Ruling government or administration
SPDC:
Totalitarian: Form of government in which power and authority is consolidated around a single leader operating on the basis of a political or social ideology
Bibliography
BBC Online Network. (1998, December 2). Zimbabwe's history: key dates. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/12/98/zimbabwe/226542.stm.
Blanco, Carlos. (2006, July). Reform of the state. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 606, 231-243. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=19&hid=17&sid=25615d14-2134-488c-982b-12ee099467c0%40sessionmgr9.
Cherian, George. (2007, June). Consolidating authoritarian rule. Pacific Review, 20, 127-145. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=8&sid=0cea4ac9-dfa4-4a39-b0a4-d40a76b4bebb%40SRCSM2.
CIA World Factbook. (2008, April 15). Singapore. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html.
Crispin, Shawn W. (2006, April 27). Singapore's authoritarian rulers tangled in web. Asia Times . Retrieved May 2, 2008 from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HD27Ae03.html.
Democracy Building. (2004). A short definition of democracy. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html.
The Economist. (2008, April 26). The stalemate turns bloody. 387(8577). Retrieved April 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=17&sid=25615d14-2134-488c-982b-12ee099467c0%40sessionmgr9.
Heydari, A., Teymoori, A., & Haghish, E. F. (2013). Socioeconomic status, perceived parental control, and authoritarianism: Development of authoritarianism in Iranian society. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 16, 228-237. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12027 Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88979760&site=ehost-live
Heydemann, S. (2013). SYRIA AND THE FUTURE OF AUTHORITARIANISM. Journal Of Democracy, 24, 59-73. Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=91655296&site=ehost-live
Kinne, B. J., & Marinov, N. (2013). Electoral Authoritarianism and Credible Signaling in International Crises. Journal Of Conflict Resolution, 57, 359-386. doi:10.1177/0022002712446124
Mabry, Don. (2008). Letter from Lope de Aguirre, rebel, to King Philip of Spain, 1561. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=99.
Riley, Dylan and Fernandez, Juan. (2005). Fascism, authoritarianism and post-authoritarian democracy. Conference Papers - American Sociological Association. 1-50. Retrieved April 28, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=10&hid=14&sid=d62f295e-ae04-483b-a071-72b3b39ec8d5%40sessionmgr2.
Smith, Geri. (2004, May 17). Democracy on the ropes. Business Week, 3883 . Retrieved April 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=17&hid=17&sid=25615d14-2134-488c-982b-12ee099467c0%40sessionmgr9
Suggested Reading
Awad, I. (2013). Breaking out of Authoritarianism: 18 Months of Political Transition in Egypt. Constellations: An International Journal Of Critical & Democratic Theory, 20, 275-292. doi:10.1111/cons.12034 Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88005610&site=ehost-live
Csepeli, G., & Gerg?, P. (2011). New Authoritarianism - A Research Note. Romanian Sociology / Sociologie Romƒneascƒ, 9, 47-63.Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70106816&site=ehost-live
Gat, Azar. (2007, July/August). The return of authoritarian great powers. Foreign Affairs, 86, 59-69. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=21&sid=5c57a781-6e84-4f10-b128-5d3ff7196ac4%40sessionmgr8.
Hilsum, Lindsey. (2007, July 9). Give us democracy - but not yet. New Statesman, 136(4850), 25-26. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=10&hid=21&sid=5c57a781-6e84-4f10-b128-5d3ff7196ac4%40sessionmgr8.
Porter, Jeremy. (2008, January/February). Using structural equation modeling to examine the relationship between political cynicism and right-wing authoritarianism. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 36-54. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=21&sid=5c57a781-6e84-4f10-b128-5d3ff7196ac4%40sessionmgr8.
Svolik, Milan. (2007). A theory of government dynamics in authoritarian regimes. Conference Papers - International Studies Association. 1-46. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=21&sid=5c57a781-6e84-4f10-b128-5d3ff7196ac4%40sessionmgr8.
Tarzi, S. M., & Schackow, N. (2012). OIL AND POLITICAL FREEDOM IN THIRD WORLD PETRO STATES: DO OIL PRICES AND DEPENDENCE ON PETROLEUM EXPORTS FOSTER AUTHORITARIANISM?. Journal Of Third World Studies, 29, 231-250. Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85110701&site=ehost-live
Vanderhill, Rachel. (2007). How external actors influence authoritarian regimes. Conference Papers - International Studies Association. 1-17. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=21&sid=5c57a781-6e84-4f10-b128-5d3ff7196ac4%40sessionmgr8.