There are often negative connotations attached to authoritarianism, but many authoritarian regimes have developed strong, stable, and successful states throughout history. The key to this success is largely embedded in the type of authoritarian regimes the states adopt, because the type of regime heavily affects the framework of the government. For Mihntalo, a state transitioning from a democratic to an authoritarian regime, the adoption of a hybrid system will result in creating a stable, strong state. A hybrid system encompasses various characteristics of democracy which will allow for Mihntalo to transition more efficiently, and has authoritarian characteristics, such as the manipulation of elections, laws, and media, that allow the leader …show more content…
States are defined as a unit of political organizations, and the three general requirements of a state are territorial boundaries, sovereignty, and legitimate use of violence (Chan, Alexia). Although it may seem straightforward, state building is difficult. Many scholars, such as Herbst and Tilly, have contemplated and argued about what leads to state building. Tilly is a strong proponent of “coercion and capital”, using state building in Europe to demonstrate how state building is achieved (Tilly. 19). He says war is a significant factor in state building, because it forms a military and develops the coercive side of the state. War also allows the development of a tax agency since tax is required to fund war (Tilly.20). He states that this will lead to a formation of a government, which will maintain order. Herbst, on the other hand, explores state formation in Africa, and argues that there is more required in state building. He also claims that it is necessary to build infrastructure that goes beyond taxing and fighting wars (Herbst. 57). He counters Tilly’s argument by stating that he is only looking at the European countries, claiming that his theory is not universally applicable (Herbst 46). Although Mihntalo is already a state, the leader is advised to learn from Herbst and Tilly, and look at the country’s culture and values to justify whether …show more content…
Zaire was a state that failed as a result of bad outside influence, internal conflict, lack of control of violence, and the people’s hatred towards the ruler (McNulty. 53-82). Their institutions for economic and financial control had failed, making them heavily reliant on outside forces, and they had high levels of corruption (McNulty. 53-82). This weakening of institutions, rule of law, communal divisions, and political parties led to the fall of Zaire (Chan, Alexia). To avoid the same situation, looking at what components make up a strong state is important. A typical strong state has protection for citizens, defend territories, provide goods, manage the economy, collect taxes, and make rules/enforce laws (Alexia, Chan). As a hybrid regime, Mihntalo they can ensure protection for citizens because they allow for at least some form of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech/media, and citizens are able to access the government through various political organization to have some say in the government. By having a well-functioning military under their rule, they will be able to defend their territories against foreign invaders. Creating a legislature, as mentioned earlier, will allow Mihntalo to make rules and enforce laws. A strong central government will allow Mihntalo to manage their
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
Why do we have government? Government may be defined as a set of institutions that regulate behavior within territorial boundaries thru the legitimate use of force. Go...
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
In order to establish a semblance of order in international politics, states come together and create systems. These systems can take several forms including military alliances, economic trade agreements, and international humanitarian coalitions. These are designed to promote cooperation between states and inject order into an anarchical system (Waltz 79-106). For Defensive Realists, it is foolish for a state to try to maximize its power because that state will be punished by the international system. Whether it is economic sanctions, or military conflict, international systems serve as a check on an otherwise anarchical
Weak and failed states share many common characteristics. One of the most common features of a weak state is the presence of persistent violence. This violence is in the form of civil wars and civil unrest, this is an indicator that a government has lost legitimacy as well as control over some parts of territory. Other features include a weak bureaucracy that is very susceptible to corruption especially corruption from non-state actors such as terrorists and warlords. As the government’s power and influence continues to decline, citizens turn to these non-s...
The state level analysis can be described as an analytical approach to the study of the world politics that emphasizes how the internal attributes of the state influence their foreign policy behavior. This type of analysis includes the type of government, economic style, culture, geographical attributes, and the degree of political instability the state has. Firstly, the nature of the state can create problems with foreign states. Wars are not due to the evil nature of human beings, but to the existence of a bad institution that corrupt human behavior. The democracies are seen as peaceful, while the autocratic states are more likely to pursue aggressive, militaristic and warlike policies.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
Political theorists seek to systematize and classify various forms of government which have existed and still exist in the contemporary world. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are very important subject of studies and debates. As the question is suggesting there are basic differences between these regimes that allow us to distinct them. In this essay, I will describe crucial differences which are: existence of political pluralism and ideology, rate of the government control over society, degree of active involvement of citizens in political life and powers in other areas, outside politics. In conclusion, I will discuss the complexity of this subject and I will try to describe it in a broader perspective.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
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.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...
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.
To examine what state formation is and how it has occurred the logical route seems to assess from where they have evolved. The notion of the state is a relatively recent concept, for example in 1555 there existed only two national states, England and France. With otherwise the existence of disorganised and corrupt empires, federations and protectorates. It appears states have formed despite the many obstacles facing their development. Not only did the challenges of securing territory exist but ri...