Authoritarianism (Authoritarian regime) - what it is, features, signs, types and forms.

Updated September 28: 105,212 Author: Dmitry Petrov
Hello, dear readers of the KtoNaNovenkogo.ru blog. In modern political science, it is customary to distinguish three political regimes: totalitarianism (what is it?), democracy (what is it like?) and authoritarianism.

The latter belongs to the category of non-democratic, characterized by a strong-arm management style and a limited number of citizens’ freedoms.

Society has an ambiguous attitude towards this regime - some criticize it for the presence of many restrictions, others praise it for the order.

Let's take a closer look at its signs and characteristics in order to draw our own conclusions about authoritarianism.

What is AUTHORITARISM - definition, meaning in simple words.

In simple words, Authoritarianism (Authoritarian regime) is a theory and system of government, usually associated with dictatorship, as opposed to democracy, that arose in response to state crises of the political system (democratic failure, social polarization, economic stagnation and international instability).

For almost all of human existence, authoritarian forms of government have existed. An authoritarian regime exercises sovereign power through one-party rule and may depend on the military to maintain order. In its extreme control over society, it can become a totalitarian monopoly.

It is a principle based on submission to authority and is opposed to people's autonomy in thought and action. As a form of government, authoritarianism concentrates power in the hands of

• leader (cult of personality)

or

• a small elite (elite dictatorship), which is constitutionally not accountable to the people.

Unlike totalitarian systems, authoritarian governments usually lack a highly developed ideology. Leaders of authoritarian systems often exercise their power arbitrarily and consider themselves above the existing law. Modern authoritarian systems typically operate through single dominant parties that control the government and other key parts of society, including the economy, the media, and education. They usually do not hold free elections that could replace them with a rival party. It is difficult or impossible for citizens to form opposition groups or parties.

Authoritarianism as a political phenomenon

One of the most common types of political regimes over three millennia is, as we know, authoritarian. Currently (according to S. Huntington) out of 190 states, 140 have authoritarian regimes [1].

In the political history of civilization, authoritarianism represented an extreme form of political domination; scientists define the following various forms: ancient Eastern despotism, tyrannical regimes of antiquity, absolutist monarchies of the 19th century, communist and fascist regimes of the 20th century.

The political diversity of forms of authoritarianism shows that this issue had its origins in the era of antiquity, in the political and legal thought of the 5th century BC. So, starting with Plato, one of the fundamental questions of the science of politics was the question of who should govern the state? His state is an example of a dictatorship, when the elite unanimously decides what should and should not be a public good.

The further formation of the ideas of authoritarianism occurred during the Renaissance. At this time, the decomposition of feudalism, the emergence of the capitalist system, and the development of the bourgeoisie took place. It was in the works of N. Machiavelli that the beginning of bourgeois political and legal ideology was laid. His political teaching was free from theology: it was based on the study of the activities of the state, on ideas about the interests and aspirations of the state ruler. In addition, the Italian thinker freed the politician from the need to observe moral standards and believed that any means were acceptable in the struggle for power.

In the middle of the 17th century. There was a bourgeois revolution in England . Authoritarian rule during the revolutionary changes was justified by beliefs in the advantages of this system. The absolutist theorist T. Hobbes, who defended royal power in England, argued: “Numerous natural persons have united into one civil person, either under the influence of fear, or in the hope of protection, an important conclusion follows from this - the one who has the supreme power is above law, for he creates it himself” [2].

It should be noted that the ideas of the thinkers of Antiquity, the Renaissance and the New Time, embodied in the characteristic features of that period, did not have a logically completed form. And therefore, it is premature to talk about the emergence of the concept of authoritarianism in these times. Under the conditions of that time, authoritarianism had no chance of gaining a consistent justification.

The theory of authoritarianism was formalized much later, at the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, many researchers assessed this type of organization very positively.

The theory of authoritarianism was first put forward by ultra-conservative and reactionary theorists as a response to the French Revolution and the socialist movement. For example, the French thinkers J. Meistre and L. Bonald considered authority as the core of state order, saw in it an alternative to chaos, a way to establish balance. The Spanish theorist D. Cortes saw in the authoritarian political order, ensuring the sanctity of obedience, the conditions for the cohesion of the nation, state, and society. The problems of authoritarianism were also considered by such a thinker as O. Spengler. In his opinion, in contrast to liberalism, which gives rise to anarchy, authoritarianism fosters discipline and establishes the necessary hierarchy in society [3].

In the first half of the 20th century. the authoritarian doctrine began to more often take on a national and anti-democratic character. Indicative is the authoritarian concept of the far-right French ideologist and politician Charles Maurras, for whom industrialization, the penetration of the state into society, and the high mobilization of the people as a means of implementing politics are objective and inevitable conditions of authoritarianism.

E. Fromm also addressed the problem of the psychology of authoritarianism. In the famous work “Flight from Freedom,” published in 1941, he analyzes the phenomenon of the desire to renounce the independence of one’s personality and connect one’s self with someone or something in order to gain the strength that the individual lacks. Individuals with this tendency are described by E. Fromm as people with an “authoritarian character.” Speaking about the mechanisms of escape from freedom, along with the authoritarian character, E. Fromm identified such a psychological mechanism as destructiveness, which manifests itself in anxiety, constraint and a feeling of powerlessness. Both of these properties contribute to the strengthening of authoritarianism, as they lead, in turn, to a willingness to submit to authority [4].

Following E. Fromm, the problem of the psychology of authoritarianism was studied by A. Maslow. In 1943, his work “The Structure of Authoritarian Character” appeared. According to A. Maslow, an authoritarian person has such typical traits as:

• — hierarchical consciousness;
• - tendency to generalize characteristics of superiority or inferiority;
• - desire for external attributes of prestige - power, money, status;
• - the presence of hostility, hatred, prejudice in the character.

According to its characteristic features, as is known, authoritarianism occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy . It is similar to totalitarianism in the autocratic nature of power, not limited by laws, and with democracy - the presence of autonomous public spheres not regulated by the state, especially the economy and private life, and the preservation of elements of civil society.

Considering that in the literature there is no “working” concept of authoritarianism with which all researchers would agree, we consider it necessary to pay attention to its most common definitions.

Thus, according to the definition of H. Linz , authoritarian are “political systems that are characterized by: limited, although initiated from above, political pluralism, the absence of a developed leading ideology. It is a system in which a leader or a narrow group of individuals exercises power within vaguely defined but entirely predictable boundaries.”

The German political scientist K. Schmitt defined an authoritarian regime as “a state-political structure of society in which political power is exercised by a specific person, with minimal participation of the people.”

The richness and diversity of authoritarian political systems have determined a number of universal, fundamental distinctive features, as well as factors that ensure the spread of these political orders.

In its most general form, authoritarianism has the appearance of a system of strict political rule, constantly using coercive and forceful methods to regulate basic social processes. Because of this, the most important political institutions in society are the disciplinary structures of the state: its law enforcement agencies (army, police, intelligence services) and the corresponding means of ensuring political stability (prisons, concentration camps, preventive detentions, group and mass repressions, mechanisms of strict control over the behavior of citizens ). With this style of government, the opposition is excluded not only from the sphere of decision-making, but also from political life in general. Elections or other procedures aimed at identifying public opinion and citizens’ requests are either absent or used purely formally.

Authoritarian regimes are formed, according to many researchers, as a rule, as a result of coups d'etat. The type of formation and rule of power that is emerging in this way shows that the real ruling forces in society are small elite groups that exercise power either in the form of collective domination (for example, in the form of the power of a separate party, a military junta), or in the form of a regime of autocracy of one or another leader. Moreover, the personalization of the ruling regime in the guise of one or another rule is the most common form of organization of authoritarian orders.

But in any case, the main social support of an authoritarian regime, as a rule, are groups of military personnel (“security officials”) and the bureaucracy. However, while effectively acting to strengthen and monopolize power, they are poorly suited to ensure the functions of integrating the state and society and ensuring the connection of the population with the authorities. The resulting distance between the regime and ordinary citizens tends to increase.

Currently, according to Russian political scientist K.S. Gadzhiev, the most significant prerequisites for the emergence of authoritarian regimes are preserved by transitional societies [5].

What factors influence such a wide spread of authoritarian systems? This problem was studied quite fully by A. Przeworski, who identified the following factors :

First , all political leaders have to deal with the problem of establishing order.

Secondly, authoritarian bureaucratic systems are characterized by the presence of a single administrative apparatus, which allows the ruling elites to retain power in their hands and influence the rate of economic growth.

Third, in addition to political-economic pressure from within, the authoritarian bureaucratic system was supported by foreign institutions. They created bureaucratic management structures, professional armies, a civil service with highly educated personnel, an economic infrastructure, and introduced centralized tax collection.

Fourth, as income disparities widened, so did political tension between the urban elite and the poor, directors and workers, managers of agricultural cooperatives and the rural population. By preventing these conflicts, the military and police gained even greater power over the government administration, thereby strengthening the bureaucratic authoritarian regime [6].

Having studied the prerequisites for the emergence of authoritarian regimes, one should pay attention to its typology. Many researchers, such as S. Maurras, J. Gray, S. Huntington C. Eindrain, studied this problem.

Thus, S. Maurras considers party, national, corporate, and personal power regimes to be the main types of authoritarian regimes.

Let's look at each of them in detail. The peculiarity of party regimes is the exercise of monopoly power by any party or political group, which does not necessarily formally represent the institution of the party. Most often these are one-party regimes, but they can also include forms of government of aristocratic (Morocco, Nepal) or family groups (Guatemala), as well as the government of the top officials of the state with their “close-knit” teams (Belarus).

Models of national authoritarianism arise as a result of dominance of a national or ethnic group in an elite group (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan). They have not yet become complete, but they already clearly demonstrate the desire to create social and political advantages for representatives of one group of the population.

The corporate regime personifies the power of bureaucratic, oligarchic or shadow (informal, criminal) groups that combine power and property and, on this basis, control the decision-making process. The most common economic prerequisite for corporate authoritarianism is state entrepreneurship, as a result of which officials receive huge personal incomes. Corporate reallocation of resources tends to exclude political parties and other specialized interest groups from the decision-making process.

Regimes of personal power (India under Gandhi, Spain under Franco) personalize all political relations in the eyes of public opinion. The harsh nature of government, combined with certain traditions of uncritical perception of power, often produces an economic effect, leads to the activation of the population and an increase in the legitimacy of the regime. However, such a system of power often provokes political terror on the part of the opposition.

American political scientist J. Gray distinguished between military, populist and bureaucratic regimes.

Military, or “praetorian” regimes most often arise as a result of coups d'état. The reasons for the seizure of power by the military are the crisis of political structures, political instability, fraught with acute social conflicts. The establishment of military dictatorships, as a rule, is accompanied by the abolition of the previous constitution, the dissolution of parliament, a complete ban on any opposition forces, and the concentration of legislative and executive power in the hands of the military council (countries of Latin America, Africa, and Pakistan). A distinctive feature of military dictatorships is the wide scope of terrorist activities carried out by the army, police and intelligence services.

Populist regimes are characterized by leaderism. This type of regime is characterized by ideological mobilization of the masses aimed at supporting a national leader (Egypt, Libya). One of the main means of legitimizing power used by the regime is: manipulation of the plebiscite; involving the people in politics through demonstrations, demonstrations, and support rallies.

In bureaucratic regimes, the main role in making the most important decisions is played by senior government officials. There is practically no procedure for electing the head of the executive branch. Such regimes are most often established after coups; they are distinguished from military regimes by the dominant role of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy relies on the army, as well as on the network of corporations it creates, which, bypassing the party and trade unions, connect the state and society (Pinochet's regime in Chile).

The American researcher S. Huntington also dealt with the problem of the typology of authoritarianism. Assessing the prospects for the development of democracy in the world, in his work “The Third Wave - Democratization at the End of the 20th Century,” he formulated the following types of authoritarianism:

• a) authoritarian nationalism, which is characterized by the desire to create social and political advantages for representatives of one group (nation) of the population (currently such systems are typical for a number of countries in the post-Soviet space - Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan);
• b) religious fundamentalism (Islam, Confucianism and Buddhism), which is determined by the great influence of tradition and religion on the development of authoritarianism (Iran, Pakistan);
• c) oligarchic authoritarianism, in which representatives of the richest circles of society have influence on the levers of power (according to many political scientists, today an oligarchic type of political system is emerging in Russian society);
• d) populist dictatorship, a feature of which is leaderism. This type of regime is characterized by ideological mobilization of the masses aimed at supporting a national leader (the regimes of Nasser in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya can serve as striking examples of populism).

Many researchers (such as S. Lipset, S. Huntington, E. Fromm, C. Eindrein) studied the problem of the formation of conditions for authoritarianism. These conditions include a number of factors that determined the establishment of an authoritarian regime. These include: political, economic, sociocultural, psychological, structural, political-ideological and other factors [7].

For example, the American political scientist S. Lipset identified the following factors among them: political, economic and social, which are respectively expressed in:

• — underdevelopment of political institutions and immaturity of civil society (political);
• — economic underdevelopment, high inflation, rising unemployment (economic);
• - lumpenization and marginalization of the masses (social).

S. Huntington paid attention to sociocultural conditions, which included the influence of tradition, religion, and political culture on society.

No less important in the problem of considering the conditions for the formation of authoritarianism are psychological factors. One of the first researchers in this area was E. Fromm. He proceeded from the fact that such a regime influences an individual who, under the influence of an authoritarian environment, develops a certain set of personal qualities, called the “authoritarian personality.” This personality type is characterized by a whole set of characteristics, among which the following should be highlighted:

• political and ideological ideas: fragmented political culture (orientation of the population towards different ideologies and development models, lack of common national values);
• psychological form of expression: intolerance towards dissent, uncertainty and disorder.

Research into psychological patterns contributes to understanding the establishment of authoritarianism. But in our opinion, the most detailed conditions for the emergence of an authoritarian regime were studied by Charles Eindrein . He identifies three interrelated crises - structural, cultural, behavioral, which are briefly described in the following table:

But the most important condition for establishing an authoritarian system, in our opinion, is the presence of a structural crisis, which is accompanied by deinstitutionalization of the system.

One of the most significant political events of the late 20th century. there was a collapse of bureaucratic authoritarian regimes. Between 1974 and 1990 (according to the observation of S. Huntington), at least 30 countries have made the transition from authoritarianism to democracy.

Naturally, each country has its own characteristics of the transition to democracy. However, one cannot fail to note the general patterns, which are much more numerous than the particulars. These include, first of all, the following:

• - adaptation of the regime to changed circumstances, the so-called “liberalization” of policy;
• — the connection between the level of economic development and democracy;
• — conflict between rapid social modernization and changes in the political system that lag behind it;
• — the role of political culture, especially the influence of religion;
• — “guardian” democracy as a guarantee of the nation’s prosperity;
• — the influence of external political actors, primarily the United States and the European Community;
• — the possibility of democracy “rolling back” to authoritarianism [8].

As a result of studying the above basic patterns during the transformation of authoritarianism into democracy, certain conclusions can be drawn:

1. According to the first trend, authoritarianism is a short-lived, transitional political regime that, through its own efforts, creates the preconditions for self-denial and transformation into democracy.
2. The second pattern defines the connection between the economic level of development and democracy, which implies a transition to democracy primarily in countries with an average level of economic development.
3. Based on the third trend, it should be noted that industrialization, social modernization and increased access to education give rise to a desire to expand civil liberties, political pluralism and competitive elections.
4. The role of political culture and the influence of religion directly depend on the political regime in the country. Cultural and historical traditions, their inherent values, beliefs and behavioral patterns that correspond to them favor or hinder the development of democracy as a whole.
5. According to I.V. Blauberg, the main indicator of the functionality of “guardian” democracy is the recognition by the ruling military elite of democratic competition and the simultaneous desire to maintain control over state power.
6. The United States has always had an active foreign policy. Thus, during the Cold War, they contributed to both the establishment of authoritarian regimes and had a great influence on the development of democracy in many countries of the world.
7. It should be noted that the establishment of democracy does not mean that this regime cannot subsequently transform into authoritarianism. There are a number of factors contributing to the “backsliding” of democracy: a serious economic crisis that can aggravate social relations, as well as the insufficient rooting of democratic values ​​among the main groups of the elite and the masses.

Bibliography

1. Huntington S. The Third Wave of Democracy. Theory and practice of democracy. Favorite texts / Transl. from English; Ed. V.L. Inozemtseva, B.G. Kapustina - M.: Ladomir, 2006. - 496 p.
2. SaadanbekovZh. Authoritarianism and democracy in the East. - Astana: Foliot, 2004. - 58 p.
3. Political Science: Encyclopedic Dictionary // General. ed. and compiled by: Yu.I.Averyanov. - M.: Publishing house Moscow. Commercial University, 1993. - 218 p.
4. Fromm E. Flight from freedom. - M.: Aspect Press, 1990. - 97 p.
5. Gadzhiev K.S. Totalitarianism as a phenomenon of the twentieth century // Questions of Philosophy. - 1992. - No. 2. - 79 p.
6. Przeworskiy A. Culture and democracy. Theory and practice of democracy. Favorite texts / Translated from English; Edited by V.L. Inozemtsev, B.G. Kapustin - M.: Ladomir, 2006. - 496 p.
7. Eindrein Ch. Comparative analysis of political systems. - M.: Ves Mir, 2001. - 113 p.
8. Elizarov V. From authoritarianism to democracy // Pro contra-1998. - No. 3. - 7 8s.

Authoritarianism and democracy.

The term "authoritarian regimes" in its broadest sense covers all forms of non-democratic government. Compared to democracies, authoritarian regimes do not support

• institutions and participation procedures,
• political competition,
• fundamental rights and control of power (separation of powers, parliaments, elections, plurality of parties, etc.) characteristic of democracy, and thus lacks democratic legitimacy.

Differences from totalitarianism

Both types of regimes are characterized by a low level of development of legislation, centralization of government functions, a rigid vertical structure, and one-party rule. The main value for authoritarianism is the preservation of power, and not a utopian ideology. It is more liberal than totalitarianism, but tougher than democracy.

Photo: Philippine opposition in front of water cannons in Mendiola. Source: Jacinto Tee/ officialgazette.gov.ph

Table 1. Comparison

Totalitarianism denies opposition, using power structures for mass repression. In an autocracy, dissent formally exists, but does not have the opportunity to be expressed. The army and security agencies act selectively, relying not on open violence, but on secret political investigation. Totalitarianism is an anti-class regime. Autocracy prefers to preserve traditional social ties.

Quote. “The term of a dictator’s reign should not be determined by such an unpredictable thing as the will of the people. After all, people themselves don’t know what’s best for them, but you know” (Mikal Khem, from the book “Being a Dictator...”).

Signs of authoritarianism.

Juan Linz, whose 1964 description of authoritarianism is influential, characterized authoritarian regimes as political systems by the following qualities:

• “limited rather than responsible political pluralism” in contrast to the fundamentally unlimited pluralism of democracies; that is, restrictions on political institutions and groups (such as legislatures, political parties and interest groups),
• lack of “intensive or extensive political mobilization” and restrictions on the mass public (for example, repressive tactics against opponents and prohibition of anti-regime activities),
• "formally vague" executive power, often changeable or vague.

Advantages and disadvantages

The weaknesses of authoritarianism are the limitation of public participation in government, the dependence of political decisions on the opinion of the leader (top). Strengths include the ability to ensure stability, order, efficiency in extreme conditions, and find ways out of a dead end.

Photo: Juan Peron, President of Argentina (1946-1955, 1973-1974), and his wife Eva

Examples of successful reform autocracies are the regimes of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, Juan Peron in Argentina, etc. The desire for creation and progress are the undoubted advantages of authoritarianism.

Types of authoritarian rule.

Linz identifies seven types of authoritarian rule:

1. Bureaucratic-military management.
2. Authoritarian corporatism.
3. Mobilizing authoritarian regime.
4. Post-colonial authoritarian regime.
5. Racial and ethnic "democracies".
6. Incomplete totalitarian and pre-totalitarian regime.
7. Post-totalitarian authoritarian regime.

Types of authoritarian governments also include:

• absolute monarchy
• military dictatorship
• ideological regimes.

Forms of authoritarian management.

Typically, authoritarian governance takes the following forms:

1. Authoritarian monarchy

The most traditional political system in the modern world is an authoritarian monarchy. The basis of its legitimacy is common and often associated with mythical assumptions regarding the founding of the dynasty in question. Examples of this type are Ethiopia (before 1974) and Saudi Arabia. Accession to the throne is usually governed by heredity, and there is little or no open political competition. There is no formal separation of powers, and power structures are personalistic and reinforced by the aristocratic ideology of the upper class. In earlier times, most such regimes were built on feudal agrarian structures. Today they tend to have centralized and absolutist characteristics.

1. "Old" oligarchy

This type of authoritarianism is prevalent in Latin America. This is a traditional authoritarian regime. Such a regime receives support from feudal or "neo-feudal" rural structures and, since the late twentieth century, from sections of the urban upper class. In extreme forms of the old oligarchy (such as Nicaragua before 1979), a small number of leading families exercise almost exclusive control over the political and economic life of the country. In this system, one leader can be replaced relatively easily by another, sometimes through rigged elections that do not fundamentally change the power structure. Political activities and the media are usually controlled by the regime's repressive apparatus. Other elements that make up the separation of powers, such as an independent judiciary or a federal structure, are also missing.

1. "New" oligarchy

The "new" oligarchy receives support from dominant urban groups in the modern context. In this “hegemonic” regime, there is no open competition for government positions. Usually there is a one-party structure, which, however, is predominantly formal and ineffective. Instead, much emphasis is placed on bureaucracy. Public opinion and the media are controlled, and leadership is centralized and highly personalized. There may be some charismatic elements of legitimacy in this regard. Compliance is established either by passive acceptance or by repressive measures. Both social base and “inclusiveness” vary along ethnic and class lines. In most cases, a relatively broad ethnic base is combined with more limited class interests that favor the advantaged groups of society. Examples include countries such as Cameroon, Tunisia and the Philippines (under Ferdinand Marcos; 1917–1989).

1. Semi-competitive authoritarianism

In Latin America, this system was also based on traditionally dominant classes, but there is a greater balance between rural and urban elements. Opposing elements are often institutionalized in "conservative" and "liberal" parties, for example in nineteenth-century Chile, Colombia or Uruguay. Active participation remains limited to the middle and upper strata of the population. Semi-competitive regimes tend to follow established constitutional rules within a presidential or parliamentary system. Regular transfers of power occur within established limits. As a rule, they are less repressive than “oligarchic” systems. The media also often enjoy greater freedom.

1. Socialist authoritarianism

“Socialist” regimes reveal a different pattern. They are characterized by an effective one-party organization, a centralized system of government, and an ideology aimed at social order and “non-capitalist” and “self-reliant” development. Freedom of expression and pluralistic forms of organization are restricted. However, there are many variations. One group (such as post-independence Tanzania and Guinea) attempted to base their specific type of socialism on the traditions and culture of their societies. Another group (e.g. Algeria, Mozambique) championed a Marxist-oriented “scientific” brand of socialism. In both groups there may be some semi-competitive elements in the internal party and parliamentary spheres. Socialist regimes should be distinguished from their totalitarian "communist" counterparts, if only because of their overall "underdevelopment" and relative lack of effective social control.

1. Military regimes

In addition to civilian regimes, there are systems that are controlled by military rulers who came to power through a coup d'état after previous civilian institutions failed. In the absence of significant countervailing forces, the military's monopoly on physical coercion makes less effective civilian governments easy prey for armed groups. The social foundations of these regimes are usually quite narrow. Some military rulers act as temporary caretakers and make sincere attempts to return their countries to civilian rule (like Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria in 1980). Others, on the contrary, seek to establish their power forever.

Three subtypes of military authoritarian regimes can be distinguished:

• personal military authoritarianism (centered around the “strong man” and his closest followers);
• corporate military authoritarianism (there is a certain institutionalized transfer of power established within the leadership ranks of the armed forces);
• military socialist authoritarianism (establishes its power on a permanent basis by creating a one-party system).

Specific properties of authoritarian power

Authoritarianism manifests itself in the following signs:

1. Maintaining monopoly control of the state in the hands of the authorities. Power may be in the hands of an individual, a party or a social group;
2. Lack of opposition to government. The authoritarian regime partially or completely limits the formation of political opposition;
3. State power is centralized and rigid;
4. The board is formed in a completely undemocratic way, i.e. there is no election system and power is inherited, through seizure, co-optation;
5. The authorities rely on and actively use power structures in their governance. They suppress all popular indignation, protests,
6. The government is not controlled by anything or anyone, the people have no means of protection from the government and cannot limit its activities;
7. Command style of management. Repression is the priority way to combat opponents of the political regime;
8. Anti-democratic orientation of actions;
9. The absence of a constitution or its presence only on paper, without real reliance on it when passing laws and developing directions of state policy;
10. The predominance of ideology enshrined at the state level;
11. The political elite is not selected through popular vote, but through selection by the government representatives themselves, i.e. Appointment comes from the top rather than through competition;
12. Lack of implementation of the principle of separation of powers. In fact, neither parliament nor the court has real power, but is completely subordinate to a single ruler or authority;
13. The states and the ruling party are represented as one;
14. It is possible for an authoritarian regime to rely on traditional social institutions - the church, the bureaucracy;
15. The economic structure is characterized by diversity. With the predominance of the public sector and state control of all spheres of the social structure, a market economy or a mixed type economy may well be developed;
16. Aggressive foreign policy. The authoritarian regime relies on and actively develops demagoguery, intensifies racial discrimination and national hostility;
17. An ideology often develops that involves fanatical worship of state power. For this purpose, various intimidating events are carried out, and the philosophy of servility is promoted.

Finished works on a similar topic

Coursework Authoritarianism 440 ₽ Essay Authoritarianism 250 ₽ Test paper Authoritarianism 210 ₽

Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost

What is an authoritarian government?

An authoritarian government is a government that wields power and carries out policies without the consent of the people it rules.

It is not elected by the people and has absolute power to rule as it pleases without consulting the people it rules. This may be a government in which one person acts as an absolute ruler, or a government consisting of a specific group of people, such as a political party. Authoritarian governments are typically characterized by suppression of dissent and control of the flow of information. All media are subject to strict censorship. In many cases, the media is used as a tool of an authoritarian government to make it and its policies appear more popular in the eyes of the general population.

Authoritarian governments can come to power by force of arms, as the anointed successors of previous authoritarian regimes, or even through democratic means.

The main reasons for the prevalence of authoritarian regimes in modern societies

Note 1

Authoritarian rule is also characteristic of the modern stage of social development. It is not always fully present. Sometimes, the political regime in a country is supplemented with elements of authoritarianism.

The existence of authoritarianism in modern society is explained by the following reasons:

1. Orientation of the population towards Domostroevsky concepts, which involve relying on the state and its “strong leaders”;
2. The structure of society adheres to old, traditional forms of organization, so the presence of authority is its basis; stable patriarchal type of political culture;
3. The development of society, especially its socio-economic sphere, is at a slow pace. Scientific progress is also not observed, which leads to backwardness of education;
4. Exposure to the faith and religious teachings of the majority of the population of the state. This leads to the direction of the political views of citizens in a certain direction. The church is used as an institution to influence the consciousness of citizens and protect the existing political regime;
5. Society is in a stage of development, so social tension is quite strong and pronounced.

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism: differences.

Totalitarianism is authoritarianism, but it goes beyond it. In an authoritarian system, there are few social and economic institutions outside the control of the government.

• An authoritarian system wants full political power, but does not go beyond that.
• A totalitarian system of government wants power over everything and everyone.

Representatives of totalitarian regimes seek power outside of government and begin to invade the personal life and ideology of everyone under their power.

One of the most famous examples of a totalitarian ruler was Adolf Hitler. He went beyond political rule and sought control over what people believed and even what race he thought people should be. Another key difference is how they execute their decision. An authoritarian ruler is more focused on individual power, while a totalitarian ruler is more of a charming ideologue who claims to be guided by the interests of the people or the state.

Method results

Alas, the authoritarian method of education always has negative consequences, sometimes quite severe. A child who lives and grows up in fear is deprived of the joys of childhood and is unlikely to become a happy, healthy and fulfilling person in the future.

As a child, he experiences awe and fear of his parents, but by adolescence the situation changes, and fear is transformed into hatred, aggression, and withdrawal. Constant and quite strong conflicts arise, the teenager becomes uncontrollable, dreams of leaving home as soon as possible.

Often, authoritarianism in the family leads to the child becoming despotic and cruel. He takes out his pain, grievances and fears on the weaker. He can mock animals, offend children at school, and become a hooligan.

A child raised in an authoritarian regime does not know what compromises or peaceful resolution of conflicts are, does not know true friendship, is not inclined to love others, and does not know pity (because he did not receive this in the family). Such a child is convinced that the one who is stronger is right, he gets everything by brute force, behaves cynically, rudely and cruelly.

Another scenario is the development of a weak personality. The child does not have his own desires, does not feel the right to get what he wants, he is lacking initiative and only knows how to follow orders. This person is deprived of his own will, he has extremely low self-esteem and lacks self-esteem, he considers himself weaker than others. Of course, such a person will not be able to achieve real development, success and prosperity in life.

Authoritarianism today.

Authoritarianism and populism became widely used terms when the likes of Trump, Duterte, Erdogan and Modi came to power. There are fears everywhere that we are entering a new authoritarian and populist era. The Brazilian Committee of the World Social Forum stated in August 2022, for example, that “the rise of reactionary and authoritarian thought in Brazil, in Latin America and throughout the world puts all of us, the proponents of the new world, in a framework of solidarity. Social justice, democracy and peace are in a state of readiness and constant mobilization and require a process of articulation and worldwide unity of social movements.” Research conducted by CIVICUS earlier in 2022 found that only 3% of the world's population lives in countries where the rights to protest, organize and speak out are respected, protected and fulfilled. Even the World Economic Forum believes that we are “entering a period that is easily recognizable as pre-authoritarian and fascist.”

Countries with authoritarian government regimes.

Based on the electoral process and pluralism, the functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties, the most authoritarian regimes in the world today are:

1. North Korea
2. Syria
3. Chad
4. Central African Republic
5. Democratic Republic of the Congo
6. Turkmenistan
7. Equatorial Guinea
8. Tajikistan
9. Saudi Arabia
10. Uzbekistan
11. Guinea-Bissau
12. Yemen
13. Sudan
14. Libya
15. Burundi
16. Laos
17. Eritrea
18. Iran
19. Afghanistan
20. Azerbaijan
21. United Arab Emirates
22. Bahrain
23. Djibouti
24. Swaziland
25. Oman
26. Togo
27. Kazakhstan
28. Vietnam
29. China
30. Belarus

Oligarchy

The next type of authoritarianism is oligarchic type regimes. In this regime, a certain group or clan seizes power, alienating citizens from political participation. Basically, such an oligarchic group relies on military power and aristocracy.

Nicaragua on the map

The Somoza clan in Nicaragua is the most famous example of such rule.

The Republic of Nicaragua is a state in Central America. Territory area, 129,494 km². Population: 1.6 million people. The political system is a presidential republic. Capital: Managua

From 1936 to 1979, members of the Somoza family alternately ruled the country, firmly occupying all the highest positions in the state. The family clan had warm relations with the United States, which actively supported the rulers of Nicaragua, both militarily and economically. However, the oligarchic regime, despite foreign assistance, collapsed as a result of the Sandinista revolution.

Anastasio Somoza Garcia (02/01/1896 - 09/29/1956) - Nicaraguan military officer and statesman, de facto head of Nicaragua from 1936 to 1956.

"Competitive authoritarianism"

“Competitive authoritarianism” is defined as the emergence of a new form of hybrid regimes. It can be argued that these regimes are "lesser forms" of authoritarianism in that they rely on formal democratic institutions as a means of obtaining and exercising political power, but they still violate the basic principles of democracy. Elections in countries with "competitive authoritarianism" are held regularly and are largely free of widespread fraud, but the regime still has the power to abuse resources, control the media, and illegally intimidate its opposition.

Such regimes may be more successful in the long term by preventing highly publicized rights violations from international news outlets. In this way, an authoritarian regime or dictatorship can avoid widespread domestic protest or even international rejection.

Examples of such authoritarian regimes are the countries of the Middle East and, to some extent, North Africa. These are the only regions in the world that are still ruled by single monarchs today. In the Arab world, monarchs rule in more than a third of Arab League countries, including Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Sultan of Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

All the Arab monarchs taken together rule over about forty million subjects. The question remains why and how these regimes remain so resistant to democratization. While the number of electoral democracies has nearly doubled worldwide since 1972, their numbers in the Middle East and North Africa have declined significantly.

Michael L. Ross, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues that oil may be why Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes are so resilient. The Middle East is undoubtedly one of the most oil-rich regions, and its wealth of resources may be an explanation for the fact that most states have not democratized in this region. But not all authoritarian states have oil resources, so while oil wealth may explain the presence of authoritarianism in the Middle East, it should not be assumed that this is the case everywhere. The Middle East is a striking example of a region consisting of states that, despite all the waves of democratization, managed to maintain stable authoritarian regimes. Although such persistence may have different causal mechanisms depending on the country in question, general trends in oil wealth and the presence of coercion tend to explain high levels of autocratic rule.

In business

Most often, authoritarianism manifests itself precisely as a type of management. Such a leader is characterized by rigidity, the desire for absolute discipline, absolute control. Authoritarian leadership does not involve discussing problems with the team, collective decision-making, voting, brainstorming, listening to other people's ideas or, especially, advice. Such a leader makes decisions exclusively on his own, based on his personal judgments, he has a clear set of ideas and opinions, and he is not inclined to flexibility.

An authoritarian leader takes all decisions upon himself, without giving his subordinates the opportunity to speak out or prove themselves. Working conditions, methods and laws are dictated solely by the manager, and this is not discussed.

Severe pressure and coercion are often used; the leader is not inclined to make concessions; there are no force majeure or family circumstances for him. He is not interested in the personal problems of his subordinates, and an employee who is late for work for a serious personal reason (for example, due to the illness of a loved one) will be punished without the opportunity to explain the reason.

We recommend: What is irritation?

This type of leadership has its pros and cons. Moreover, there are quite a lot of advantages, and a conscious leader, competently applying an authoritarian management style at the right stage, will be able to achieve excellent results.

This type of management can be successfully used at the initial stage, when the team (enterprise, firm) is just being formed. With the help of this leadership style, it is possible to formulate clear goals for employees, give them an understanding of the structure and form of work, its style, outline the scope of work responsibilities, and establish discipline.

At the initial stage, this leadership style will help the boss to form and establish his own authority, strengthen it, demonstrate his leadership qualities, and demonstrate the ability to achieve goals. This type of leadership is good in terms of discipline; it really helps to achieve goals, beat competitors, and develop rapidly.

The disadvantages of authoritarian management may not be obvious to the leader who prefers this style, but they are obvious to others. The lack of opportunity to express themselves and introduce their ideas completely destroys the initiative of employees, and a tense psycho-emotional atmosphere leads to apathy and reluctance of team members to work and achieve goals.

We recommend: How to learn to be calm?

This leads to “stagnation”, a lack of new ideas and methods, and staff turnover. Workers under such management become secretive, passive, they ingratiate themselves and hide shortcomings in their work, do not strive to do it at the proper level, but, fearing the wrath of their superiors, carefully cover up shortcomings. Of course, this leads to an inevitable decline in the quality of the team’s work.