“History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior,” Vladimir Putin once said this.
With such a view of authoritarianism, there would be assumption that the entire world is on its way to seek such democracy if it is such a clear, correct choice. However, nothing is ever so simple, and this is not the case.
In this essay I will take a look at how authoritarianism fails, as well as why it is able to prevail is some areas.
Authoritarian forms of government do sometimes fail. The reasons for such failure include the public’s dissatisfaction with the current governmental regime, the emergence of relevant opposition, political negotiation with elites, the physical location as well as history of freedom in a given nation, and the deserting of the authoritarian leader.
While there are legitimate reasons for nondemocratic regime failure and there have been great moves toward a more democratic world, there are also reasons authoritarianism is able to sustain and survive in some cases. The fairly recent back-slipping from democratic rule to nondemocratic rule, or authoritarianism, is contingent on many factors. Factors ranging from a state’s mineral wealth, to its history of repression, to the fact many new democracies are small and weak allow nondemocratic regimes to sustain and prevail in certain states.
One of the first steps in the failure of authoritarianism is public dissatisfaction. There must be people within the state that are not content with the way the nondemocratic regime is governing. This sort of disapproval sets in motion a movement toward the breakdown of t...
... middle of paper ...
...to represent the public interests. So, elites cash in on the resources while letting the rest of the nation suffer.
Governments evolve and change all of the time. What makes a state fail or prevail as nondemocratic depends on very many things. And, although we cannot be sure what is to come for a given nation unquestionably, this paper is an overview of some basic, guiding tendencies and situations that cause a state to either fail or prevail as an authoritarian regime. Only time will tell what is truly in store for the world governing systems.
Works Cited
O'Neil, Patrick H., and Ronald Rogowski. "Chapterb6." Essential Readings in Comparative Politics. Third ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2006. 205-41. Print.
O'Neil, Patrick H. "Chapter 6, Chapter 8." Essentials of Comparative Politics. Third ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2007. 141-162+. Print.
As the wise Plato once said, “Tyranny naturally arises out of Democracy.” It appears Plato was in fact wise beyond his years. He must have known that something in may prove him right in the future. This proof comes from Fascism during the years between World Wars. Fascism thrived during the interwar years because its eloquent leaders made the people to whom they spoke feel important to the common cause. In Italy and Germany especially, Hitler and Mussolini gave the people tasks in order to make them believe that they were significant. All of the events that transpired because of these two men played out when the leaders targeted the emotions of the people. Two men changed the face of history forever with powerful oratories, intricate parades, and clever propaganda meant to make the people of their respective countries feel in control, significant, and powerful.
With the dawn of civilization soon thereafter followed the creation of authoritarian and totalitarian establishments. The history of man is inundated with instances of leaders rising to power over certain groups of people and through various means gaining formidable control to be used for good, evil, or an ambiguous mixture of both. However, it is an undeniable fact that once unchecked power is acquired, tyranny often ensues, and thus a dictatorial regime is born. Over the centuries, governmental establishments have risen and fallen, but as history and civilization progress, so does the potential for a larger and more powerful domination. The development of differing and contrasting theologies and structural philosophies leads not only to conflict, but perhaps more prominently to unification under one rule with a common belief, especially when that unifying belief provides a promising sense of belonging and structure to a weak society. This is what led to the rise of two of the most domineering totalitarian governments in history: Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or the Third Reich.
Walter M. Simon The American Political Science Review , Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 386-399
There are three essential forms of opposing the totalitarian system: covert passive resistance, overt non-violent protest, and armed struggle. The first form of activity results, in a way, from a combination of utilitarian calculating and axiological considerations. The oppositionists may cooperate with the régime and publicly countenance it, while at the same time they venture to take action in order to liberalize the system and take the edge off the dictatorship, whenever this is possible, i.e., not noticed by the authorities, legitimate, or profitable in view of the mildness of the punishment faced by the offenders. Both individuals and institutions may follow this pattern. Under the Communist rule in Eastern Europe, even persons holding publ...
A totalitarian government is place that no person should ever be forced to live in because this type of government controls almost every aspect of its citizens’ lives. The dictators controlling these kinds of government’s take away people’s basic human rights, brainwash kids into showing no loyalty towards their families, and imprison or execute all who might be a remote threat to their party. The government then controls the remaining population with the fear of being arrested by secret state police regardless if they have committed, or planned to commit, a crime. The leaders of these societies have no regard for the wellbeing of anybody but themselves, and once they come to power, it is usually too late to stop what happens next.
Thus outcomes number two and three are most likely to happen eventually. The question remaining is thus, how can a nation prevent a domineering government for the longest time? This is outcome number one comes into play; a democratic system is by its very design meant to prevent a domineering government from arising. Outcome number four is the most unlikely to happen becau...
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy” . In labeling these regimes as authoritarian and not democratic, Levitsky and Way place emphasis on the importance of differentiating these questionable regimes from prototypical democracies. In their definition they argue that all democracies have four inherent traits; “Executives and legislatures are chosen through Elections that are open, free, and fair, virtually all adults possess the right to vote, political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, association, to criticize the government are protected and elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” . These, Levitsky and Way argue are fundamental for the prospects of democracy. ...
The most important cause, and symptom, of the decay of any government or institution is the loss of prestige and respect among the public at large, and the loss of self-confidence among the leaders themselves in their capacity to rule” (p. 79).
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.
In an authoritarian regime there are two kinds of people having their feet stick to the power, the soft-liner and the hardliners both groups present different chemistry in an authoritarian regime. More specifically the authors of the book identify these two groups as “duros” hardliners and blandos as soft-liners. The duros or hardliners are the ones who still believe that continuation of the authoritarian regimes in some cases are possible by ignoring and rejecting democratic reforms. In an authoritative regime these hardliners are composed of various fictions and layers and cling to the idea of position of authoritarian for various purpose and reasons. Some adopt this position to maintain and keep their positions
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
As time passed by, politics evolved from Monarchies to Democracies, and power has been openly up for grabs during the development of politics. Everyone wants power and everyone would do almost anything to get it, and everyone Governments should be afraid of their people. ”3( Quoted by Alan Moore, V for Vendetta) .In contrasts to the definition of authoritarianism, power is no longer in the hands of one ruler; but it now rests in the hands of the citizens of the state. According to Robert Dahl; “democratic theory is concerned with processes by which ordinary citizens exert a relatively high degree of control over leaders;”4 ( Quoted by Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition). Dahl expressed that citizens are a definite factor for this political system to further define the system of democracy in a state.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.