Legitimation, Repression and Co-optation are the three pillars in an autocratic regime. These pillars are known to somewhat keep stability throughout an autocratic regime. Through what is known as these three pillars, I will discuss the similarities and differences between the durability of regimes in China and Iran. China is under rule by the Chinese Communist Party and Iran is ruled by Ali Khamenei who came into power after the Iranian Revolution.
Legitimation is “the active consent, compliance with rules, passive obedience, or mere toleration within the population”. Many critics say that legitimation does not simply matter for the stability of an autocratic regime but I personally disagree as I think legitimation is a huge part of keeping
…show more content…
The repression used in authoritarian regimes is defined as “actual or threatened use of physical sanctions against an individual or organization, within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, for the purpose of imposing a cost on the target as well as deterring specific activities” (Gerschewski, 2012)) . Repression is defiantly seen as the defining feature of autocracies but again alone like legitimation, an authotarian regime would fail. There are 2 types of repression, one is hard repression which is the use of force for example being put into jail for political reasons and the second type is soft repression which is non-violent for example censoring a newspaper. Both these types of repressions are used in China and Iran. (Lecture notes) China has defiantly used hard repression throughout the years and there is many examples of this. 25 years ago, the Chinese regime shot unarmed pro-democracy protesters and 5 years ago an activist jailed for 11 years protesting for civil rights. The CCP use repression to maintain their reign in government and use these activists as examples of what will happen if people go against the government. As social demands are being repressed it is probably right to say that china will soon overcome this regime and democratize, showing the durability of this regime will crash at some point. (Nathan, 2014) It is also seen that China uses soft repression, the censorship of the internet is used in china. …show more content…
Co-optation is known as people being paid off to support the leaders, mainly people of higher power. There are 2 types of co-optation, the first is formal co-optation which is giving people who oppose the regime a place in party or better job, and therefore they will have incentive to support the regime. Whereas Informal co-optation is by changing rules and regulations for business leaders so they can obtain more money, the regime will do this once the business leaders don’t challenge the regime (lecture notes). In China one essential pillar of the Chinese communist party’s power is the control over the appointment and removal of political and administrative personel. This is known as the nomenklatura system. After the crash of the communist party states in the east and central Europe , the CCP knew they had to tighten there leadership and modernize control , to do this new criteria for personal selection was made as well as new procedures for promotion. The CCP knew that to keep their regime they would have to use co-optation to keep higher powers content. (Heilmann, 2000). Iran use of co-optation is quite different to the Chinese use of co-optation. The CCP bring powerful people into the government when they feel they are being threatened or feel like they could loose power , whereas Iran has a large amount of resources. Due to these large amount of resources this has
The Legacy of Russia and the Soviet Union - Authoritarian and Repressive Traditions that Refuse to Die
... dictators have been exiled or even executed as a result of the widespread use of these technologies. Dobson also writes that the biggest problem that dictators and authoritarians face is their own people (9). These factors drive dictators to learn their mistakes and their fellow dictators’ mistakes, causing the nature of dictatorship to change over the years. Particularly, Russia and China are still going strong as dictatorial regimes even though they do not appear to be so. Additionally, the involvements of non-state actors such as the CANVAS, have also affected the dictatorial regime power. With these non-state organizations have grown stronger and more powerful over time, the power of dictatorial regime has become more vulnerable to attack. In fact, these non-state actors can easily overthrow some less powerful dictator and might forget their democratic identity.
China’s policy of political imprisonment is a clear act of genocide. It is used to incite bodily and mental harm and inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Tibetan people. At times imprisonment even results in death. These crimes are all accomplished under the guise of being legal in Chinese law. A statement made by Amnesty International in 1996 cites these abuses:
Much of the contemporary commentary about U.S. policy towards Syria reduces to a debate for or against regime change which many observers characterize as a standard U.S. objective linked to a belief in American exceptionalism. President Obama tried to disavow such a view during his speech in Cairo in 2009 entitled, “A New Beginning.” His declaration there that, “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other,” was an emphatic rejection of what John M. Owen, IV describes as a “fairly common practice of statecraft.” In this paper I will summarize Owen’s main ideas from The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010, analyze his research design, evaluate the coherence of his central argument, and assess his contribution to International Relations scholarship. Although Owen’s work sheds light on the phenomenon of forcible regime promotion, his explanation is only one of several plausible causes.
“A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past” (Fidel Castro). People of power can be creative with their utterances. They can say anything to the people that they want to control. In this situation, both countries tested the limits. The political leaders of Cuba and China gained support by attracting specific types of followers, motivation and the utilization of propaganda. These leaders had campaigns targeting specific types of people to help gain power and to get support for their revolutionary ideas. The same mindset was in place when these leaders used propaganda and used their own motivation to get into people’s heads.
These differences in governing are evident from the beginning when one compares the two preambles. The American preamble emphasizes that the government will do its very best to protect its citizens so long as its citizens abide by the law and help protect the nation when they are called to do so. In the Iranian preamble, the central focus is their religious beliefs. Their constitution states that Iran aims to “advance the cultural, social, political and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles.” Their constitution is supposed to be a guide to heaven. The idea is that people who follow the law are promised to go to heaven because they are following the constitution which serves quite like a religious doctrine for
When we look at the internet censorship we can see that it affects modern day politics a lot. The internet is a tool which can destroy an oppressive regime. Now I consider the three countries I am going to talk about have oppressive regimes. If we are to list them from most to least it would be, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, People’s Republic of China and Republic of Turkey. If we look at the governing regimes in these countries we can see that North Korea is governed by communism, where China is go...
Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.
After the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of opposition, became the country’s leader and changed Iran’s Constitution, an Islamic republic government. Under this new hierarchy, which will be explained later, the country was supposed to have independent congress, president and judiciary department, to avoid corruption and bad management of wealth.
The government in china is very concerned with limiting the freedom of expression for it's citizens in all possible ways. Let's examine first the reason why censorship is such an important aspect for the Chinese government. According to the book “A Short History of China” by Gordon Kerr when the renaissance took place in Europe from the 14th through the 17th century it changed people's view in many different ways because it was “a period of exploration, discovery and advancement in almost every field”(Gordon Kerr 87); it was a rebirth of the ancient traditions. Mean...
With the Autocratic Monarchy in Iran 's rear view mirror, there is hope that the new form of government will benefit the Citizens of Iranian. Before the Iranian Revolution, which began in January 1978 and ended in February 1979, Iran 's government was an Autocratic Monarchy (Wikipedia; Iranian Revolution). Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had unlimited authority over the citizens of Iran. Shah’s dictatorship and inability to manage the country 's finances resulted in poverty and led to a revolutionary war which ultimately changed the form of Iran 's government. Once the Shah was overthrown, Iran adopted the Islamic Republic. Iran was now ruled by Islamic law. For
One final way that the rulers keep complete power is obviously censorship. Censorship is the act of blocking any form of media that doesn’t benefit the government. This can be sources like newspaper, radio, advertisements, and posters. If any of these items are not saying or promoting good things about the government they will be blocked. So the population only sees the good that the government does.
only understand them as bad things. But it is in this view that I will
Exploring the Differences Between Liberal Democratic, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Political Systems. Defining political systems is a difficult thing to do as no single system is completely static, they often change depending on things. like war and trends in regimes, such as the recent insurgence in ‘liberal democracies’ means the classification of systems. changes over time. The British Westminster system is considered to be a ‘liberal democracy’ however in the Second World War there were.
...ch speculators prosper while farmers lose their land, government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures, when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn-all this is robbery and chaos” (Lao-Tzu 29). In addition, this is complete capitalism and, therefore, the government will not succeed. One country that has united the two types of administrations is China, which is the world’s second-largest economy and has become known as the “world’s factory” (Bin 2). According to Prof Alok Bhargava in “Persuade Beijing of need for democracy,” “China is now more capitalist than communist. The Chinese economic policies have lowered production costs and brought prosperity” (16). China’s use of dual administrations demonstrates the positive outcomes of doing so, even though; China considers itself completely a communist country.