AUTHORITARIANISM IN GLOBALIZATION: A THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATION

Submitted To: Dr. Maheshwar Singh

Submitted By: Arunav Guha Roy

B.A.; LL.B (Hons.), I Year

Roll No. : 2009/19

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DELHI
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Chapter 1: Globalization and Authoritarianism: Theoretical Issues 5

3. Chapter 2: Globalization influenced Authoritarianism in different 12

parts of the world.

4. Chapter 3: Conclusion

16
 Authoritarianism in Globalization: A theoretical consideration

INTRODUCTION

In the last twenty five years, democratically elected governments replaced authoritarian
regimes at a shocking pace. From 1974 – 2000; more than five dozen democracies were formed
in different parts of Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa. 1 But, as it can be observed from
various countries who received a new government such as Egypt and Philippines, the
foundations of democracy remained unsteady. The persistence of regimes such as Hosni
Mubarak’s in Egypt has confounded the expectation that authoritarianism was merely a
transitional phase before democracy, providing that under certain conditions autocracies can last.
Democracies flourished in unexpected territories and hence many political scientists predicted
the downfall of remaining authoritarian regimes.

The basic question which this research project will aim to answer is “What forces set two
countries on such disparate paths?” The basic answer that will be expounded upon is that basic
institutional differences separate unstable regimes from durable dictatorships.

Explaining the democratizations that took place during the eighties and nineties (or what
is more commonly called the “third wave”) took place require answers to two questions. First
why did some thirty odd countries but not others under authoritarian regimes shift to democratic
political systems? Second, why did these regime changes occur in the past twenty five years and
not some other time?

The answer to the first question would depend upon the history of the regime changes in
the countries that democratized. One explanation could be the “cyclical pattern” where countries
alternate between democracy and authoritarianism, as is prevalent in various countries of Latin
America such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru etc., in these countries change of regimes perform the

1
Brownlee, Jason “Authoritarianism in an Age of Globalization” p.1 , 2007 Cambridge University Press
same function as the change of parties in stable democratic systems. Hence, the country does not
alternate between democratic and authoritarian political systems; the alteration between
2
democratic and authoritarian systems is the country’s political system. An alternate
explanation could be that either the either the democratic system failed because the country
lacked the social basis for democracy or that the leaders of the new system pursued extremist
policies that reasoning;

Whatever the reasoning, it is undisputed that globalization has definitely contributed to the
formation of semi-authoritarian regimes and states. The following pages will illustrate how
globalization has influenced democratic processes world over.

2
Huntington, Samuel “The third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century” 1993 University of
Oklahoma Press. U.S.A
 CHAPTER 1- GLOBALIZATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM: THEORETICAL
ISSUES

Before one can truly explain the position of authoritarian regimes in today’s global arena,
a basic overview and understanding of what authoritarianism stands for is required.

In a colloquial context; authoritarianism can be best described as a form of government

where primary focus lies on the authority of the state or administration in a republic or union.
This form of political system usually comprise of rulers who have attained power through non-
democratic processes and allow only a limited degree of individual freedom to its citizens.
Various authoritarian regimes in today’s world include the Peoples Republic of China, the
Democratic Republic of Congo and the Russian Federation.

1.1 CHARACTERISITCS OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT:

An authoritarian government can be typically characterized by highly centralized power

structures in which political power is maintained by a repressive system that excludes political
challengers and uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize the people around the
goals of the government.

Common principles prevailing in authoritarian regimes include:

1. Rule of men rather than the rule of law: This implies that there exists no legal,
customary or moral limit to the government’s power. Here the autocracy is supreme
and can frame and repeal laws without adhering to any formal procedure.
2. Undemocratic processes: This basically means that leaders come to power, not by a
general consensus but through the favor of a select few. Hence democratic exercises
like elections and referendums are generally rigged.
3. Decision making is primarily done behind closed doors: This implies a lack of
regard for public opinion on issues of national importance. Again as referendums and
elections are rigged, needs of the public are not addressed and decisions are made by
a handful of unelected officials.

All of the above leads to an informal and unregulated exercise of political power.
 Therefore, it can be concluded that in an authoritarian system, the leadership is self-
appointed and even if elected, cannot be displaced by the people. A unique aspect of
authoritarian systems and other related governments is the lack of tolerance of any political
opposition. This leads to the consequence that any expression or even an attempt of expression of
freedom is vehemently suppressed by the state. There exists only one political party which
subordinates the rights of the individual to the cause of the state, and in which political power
guided all the activities of the dominated society. Hence authoritarian systems inevitably lead to
a weakening of civil society. As this form of governance is characterized by lack of personal
freedom and civil liberties, it restricts formation of groups, organizations and parties to compete
for power and question the decision of its rulers. This automatically results in a devaluation of
the social structure or schema causing the general populace to lose interest in society and
creating a false sense of political stability. This political stability is being labeled as false because
people are not genuinely satisfied and hence are not willfully obeying the political authority;
rather obedience is maintained by the support of the military to provide security to the system
and control of society. Furthermore; stability is maintained through a bureaucracy staffed by the
regime and creation of alliances within certain sections of the society in order to prevent
“unionism” or hinder the rise of a unified voice, the fundamental logic being divide et empera
meaning “to divide and rule”.

As authoritarianism can be easily confused with totalitarianism as the latter is a more extreme
version of the former. It is imperative to draw a line of difference between the two.

1.2 AUTHORITARIANISM VS. TOTALITARIANISM:

“Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
~ Benito Mussolini

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limit to its authority
and tries to control every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism is basically a cross
between authoritarianism and ideology, where the authoritarian state has a pervasive scheme of
values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and
private life. Here the state has its own perception of an ideal society and uses its power in an
authoritarian way in order to establish it. Stalin’s regime in USSR, Pol Pot’s regime in Vietnam
and Hitler’s “Third Reich” in Germany can be classic examples of such a system.
While both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they both differ
in key dichotomies:
1. Unlike the generally bland and unpopular authoritarian leaders. Totalitarian dictators
develop a charismatic image in front of the masses in order to enforce their brand of
ideology. They create a pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via
the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.
2. Role conception of leaders also differentiates authoritarians from totalitarians.
Authoritarian leaders view themselves as individual beings that mainly want to
control and maintain status quo. Whereas totalitarian self conceptions are largely
teleological i.e. the ruler considers himself not as a person but as a “function”
essential for guiding and reshaping society.
3. As Totalitarian regimes function on the basis of an ideology they consider as flawless,
it engenders a society devoid of corruption. The case is not the same for an
authoritarian society--where the only purpose is satisfaction of the oligarchs--and
order is maintained by instilling fear and granting incentives to a loyal few thereby
engendering a kleptocracy.

Thus compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems have a larger sphere of private life,
lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to
mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within
relatively predictable limits.

1.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES:

Even though people use words like authoritarianism, autocracy and absolutism
interchangeably; marked differences exist between these terms as far a political science is
concerned. The different versions of authoritarianism are as follows:
1. Autocracy: In an autocracy, unchecked and overriding political power is lodged in one
person occupying a single high office. The power of government is absolute (i.e.,
unlimited) and is concentrated in the hands of the autocrat, who reserves to himself the
right to make the final decisions of government. In the final analysis, one person makes
the important decisions regarding public policy and its implementation. If the autocrat--
the one person in whom resides unlimited political power--is an hereditary monarch (king
or queen, emperor or empress), the governmental system is an absolute monarchy. In an
absolute monarchy, government is carried on in the name of one person who inherits his
title and office and who wields political power that is not effectively limited by law. The
Monarch exercises full and unbridled ruling power and does not have to share authority
with a legislative assembly or with other independent power centers in the government.
Examples of absolute monarchies that stand out in the history of Europe include (1) the
government of France under the personal direction and control of King Louis XIV during
the period from the death of his chief minister, Cardinal Mazarin, in 1661 to the death of
King Louis in 1715 and (2) the government of Russia under Czar Peter I (Peter the Great)
from 1689 to 1725 and under Czarina Catherine II (Catherine the Great) from 1762 to
1796. Absolute monarchy is the older and more traditional form of autocracy. More
recent forms of autocracy concentrate unlimited power in the hands of one person who
obtained the position of top political leader and ruler of his country, not through
hereditary succession in accordance with long-standing custom and tradition, but through
either an armed takeover of governing authority or victory in a popular election. The
autocrat, though not an hereditary monarch, is still complete master and absolute ruler of
the political society he leads and governs. The autocrat's word is law. In Nazi Germany,
for example, the key operating premise of the Third Reich was: "The will of the Fuhrer is
the law of the German state." Classic examples of twentieth-century autocracies include
some well-known political regimes of the recent past--(1) the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler
in Germany (1933-1945), (2) the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy (1922-
1943), and the government of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin (1922-1953). Present-
day examples of non-hereditary, non-monarchical autocracies include the political
regimes in Libya, Syria, and Serbia.
 2. Authoritarian Oligarchy: The type of governmental system referred to as
"authoritarian oligarchy," or "collective dictatorship," is characterized by absolute rule
of the few. Unchecked, overriding political power is lodged in the hands of a very small
number of persons who make up single cohesive elite.3 Governing power is concentrated
in one small, closely-knit group that operates as a single unit, wielding power and
governing as if its members were a single person exercising unlimited power. The ruling
elite govern as if it were an autocrat, a single absolute ruler. The elite may have gained
power through inheritance, forcible seizure of power, or victory in an election. One
particular type of authoritarian oligarchy in the modern world is the one-party state. In a
one-party state, unchecked and overriding political power is in the hands of a small,
cohesive party elite--a tightly-knit elite group consisting of the top leaders of a single
official political party. The single official party is the only legally recognized party--the
only political party that the law permits to exist and operate. The official party, as the
sole provider of candidates for public office, completely dominates the government and
all other aspects of political life within the society. The one-party state has been the
typical pattern of government in Communist-ruled societies. The one-party oligarchy was
the type of political regime that operated in the Soviet Union from the Communist seizure
of power in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the emergence of Stalin as autocratic
ruler in 1922 and again from the death of Stalin in 1953 to the political developments of
1989-1991--the collapse of the Soviet Communist regime and the dissolution of the
U.S.S.R. A one-party state has operated on the Chinese mainland since 1949, when the
Chinese Communists, under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung, emerged as the victors in
the civil war they had been waging against the government controlled by the Kuomintang
(i.e., the Chinese Nationalist Party) and headed by Chiang Kai-shek.
3. Absolute Democracy: Just as a political regime can be constitutional without being
democratic, one can be democratic without being constitutional. A government that is
democratic, but not constitutional, is called an "absolute democracy." Other labels that
have been used to refer to non-constitutional democratic political regimes include
"majoritarian dictatorship," "popular despotism," "tyranny of the majority," and "simple,
unchecked democracy." Absolute democracy, or majoritarian dictatorship, is

3
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism 20/11/2009
 characterized by absolute, or unlimited, rule of the majority. Unchecked, overriding
political power is in the hands of a simple majority (50.1 percent) of the adult citizens or
their democratically elected representatives. In such a governmental system, majority rule
is a "blank check" authorizing whatever a majority--even a very slim majority--of the
voting citizenry wishes to do, either directly or through its elected representatives. There
are no legal or constitutional restraints on the authoritative decision making and action
taking power of the majority. Examples of absolute democracy in ancient history include
the direct democracies that operated in Athens and some of the other city-states of ancient
Greece where the governmental decisions on public policy and the fate of individuals
accused of wrongdoing were determined ultimately and finally by the sovereign will of
the popular majority, unimpeded by pre-existing law. An important example of absolute
democracy occurring during the modern era of European history is the political regime
that operated in France during that brief but most violent phase of the French Revolution
known to history as the "Reign of Terror" i.e., the period of Jacobin dictatorial rule from
June 2, 1793, to June 27, 1794. There are no definite examples of absolute democracies
in the modern era, as these have been highly unstable and have had rather short lives.
Generally, such political regimes have quickly collapsed, resulting in civil war or
widespread lawlessness and violence, followed by autocracy or oligarchy ruthlessly
imposed by military force and ruthlessly maintained by continuing resort to the usual
brutal and downright barbarous methods of a tyrannical, thoroughgoing police-state.4

We can conclude by saying that all types of authoritarianism have one key characteristic in
common: Unbridled political power is lodged in one place--one person, one small and united
group, or a unified, highly disciplined, and well-led popular majority or its elected
representatives, who are unified, highly disciplined and well led.

1.4 WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION?

4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009
 Globalization can be simply called the process of increasing interconnectedness between
societies such that events in one part of the world have increasing influence on people and
societies far away.

A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural and social events become
more and more interconnected. And also one in which they have more impact.

Globalization describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and

cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and
execution. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the
integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct
investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.5

Even though many definitions exist, globalization as a phenomenon is quite difficult to

describe, mainly because it has come to mean so many things. In general, globalization refers
to the trend toward countries joining together economically, through education, society and
politics, and viewing themselves not only through their national identity but also as part of
the world as a whole. Globalization is said to bring people of all nations closer together,
especially through a common medium like the economy or the Internet.6

In our world, there are few places a person can’t get to within a day of travel, and few
people a person can’t reach via telephone or Internet. Because of modern modes of travel and
communication, citizens of a nation are more conscious of the world at large and may be
influenced by other cultures in a variety of ways. Time and space matter less, and even
language barriers are being overcome as people all over the world communicate through
trade, social Internet forums, various media sources, and a variety of other ways.

5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization. 21/11/2009
6
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-globalization.htm 21/11/2009
 CHAPTER 2 – GLOBALIZATION INFLUENCED AUTHORITARIANISM IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.

With the benefit of hindsight; it is evident that the 1990s marked a transitional period in
the timeline of the democratic movement. The Soviet Union had collapsed and democracy was
on the march, additionally the popular “color revolutions” (non-violent revolutions across states
which form a part of the erstwhile soviet union, these include Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003),
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005) ) stunned rulers all
over the world and inspired liberalists from Central Asia to the Middle East. As a consequence of
this; in today’s globalised society; authoritarianism today has lost the sway it once held in the
world.

In response to this, I must concede that this has not marked the end of authoritarianism.
Indeed this particular form of government unlike its totalitarian brethren has managed to regroup
and is adapting and modernizing its repressive practices to evolve into its 21 st century persona to
strive and act as a possible alternative to failed democracies everywhere.

In the current scenario, there are many right wing authoritarian regimes functioning all
over the world under the guise of democracy. Such regimes are also known as semi-authoritarian
regimes. Marina Ottaway, senior professor at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
and author of several books, most recently “Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-
Authoritarianism” describes semi-authoritarian regimes as those who paint a façade of
democracy without really being democratic7. For example, it’s a regime that holds competitive
elections regularly, has formal separation of powers, has an elected parliament; has a supposedly
independent judiciary, and executive which is supposedly checked by the parliament. But in
reality, the executive has overwhelming power.

Therefore, one can safely state that even though authoritarianism in its traditional sense
has disappeared, its new form as semi-authoritarianism is what we see today.

7
Ottaway Marina “Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism” p. 133, 2003 Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace
But why are these regimes cowering behind this guise of democracy to survive? Why do they not
completely reject democracy like their predecessors had done?

The simple answer: Diplomacy. It’s the realization by these nations that it’s no longer
acceptable to simply reject democracy. There is no acceptable ideology that justifies an
authoritarian solution. At the theoretical level, democracy is the only acceptable political system,
so regimes that are in fact quite determined to not allow curbs on their power need to show that
they embrace democracy. That’s why you have elections in a lot of countries that are really a
charade, because they are completely controlled by the executive, they are not free or fair, they
are not a real challenge to the power.

The countries that can be called semi-authoritarian today are a lot of the countries that
made a political transition in the 1990s and were expected to turn into democracies. This appears
true certainly for most of the Soviet successor states, but also a number of countries in Eastern
Europe, although not in countries like Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, where real
democracies seem to be taking shape.8

 A question that may arise as one makes this observation is that why is it that some
countries develop true democracies whereas others from the same region come under
authoritarian rule? Political theorists say that this totally depends on the existence of alternate
political forces in the country during the time of transition. For example, in the case of Poland or
Czech Republic, there existed a strong political opposition that pushed for change, even when the
government was resisting. In the Czech Republic, there was a development of strong grass root
movements. By contrast, in countries that had a semi-authoritarian outcome, there was a marked
absence of political opposition. For example, in Azerbaijan the transformation took place
because the Soviet Union collapsed, not because there was a strong political opposition, whose
absence allowed the government to return to its old authoritarian ways, under a façade that
makes it acceptable to the West. 

Apart from the ones mentioned above; many other countries may also be labeled as
“semi-authoritarian”, these include China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela. These countries
can also be called the five most influential authoritarian nations. They deserve special mention as

8
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bd4868e-6806-11dd-8d3b-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 22/11/2009
they impede democratic development both within and beyond their borders and are largely
responsible for the recent overall decline of political freedom throughout the world.

These countries resemble traditional authoritarian regimes in their subversion of

democracy using a combination of tools, including manipulation of the legal system, media
control, and outright fear. The ruling group in each country protects its power by rewarding
loyalists and punishing opponents without regard to due process. What makes these cases unique
and a genuinely new phenomenon, though, is the innovation and sophistication they are using to
subvert online discourse. When not controlling Internet access, these regimes have deployed
armies of commentators and provocateurs to distract and disrupt legitimate Internet discussions.

The new authoritarians also shape international values and views through sophisticated
and well-funded global media enterprises. The Kremlin has launched Russia Today, a
multimillion-dollar television venture that broadcasts to North America, Europe, and Asia. In
2007, Iran created Press TV, an English-language satellite station with an international staff
several hundred strong and China is poised to spend enormous sums on expanding overseas
media operations in a bid to improve the country's image. Beijing has reportedly set aside at least
$6 billion for these media expansion efforts.9

Meanwhile, these governments have not limited their checkbooks to media investments.
By doling out billions of dollars in no-strings-attached foreign aid, they are hobbling
international efforts to improve governance and reduce corruption through conditional aid.
Chinese leaders put forward a doctrine of "win-win" foreign relationships, encouraging Latin
American, African, Asian, and Arab states to form mutually beneficial arrangements with
Beijing based on the principle of noninterference. The Chinese aid program appears to attract
willing recipients; the World Bank estimates that China is now the largest lender to Africa.
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have similarly used their oil wealth to build foreign alliances and
bankroll clients abroad, particularly in their home regions.

As part of the broader effort to export authoritarian influence, these regimes are also
working hard to disrupt key international rules-based bodies that support democracy and human
rights, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of

9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009
American States, and the Council of Europe. At the United Nations, they have formed ad hoc
coalitions to blunt criticism, obstruct proposed sanctions, and advance anti-democratic measures.

Furthermore, today’s authoritarians have learnt much from the mistakes made by their
predecessors and hence have altered their strategies in more ways than one. They have
discontinued many practices which can be termed as “traditional”.10

These states recognize that absolute control over information and economic activity is
neither possible nor necessary. Instead, they have adapted their traditional coercive mechanisms
with more subtle methods. Political discourse is "managed," rather than blatantly dictated,
through the selective suppression or reshaping of news and information. And while the most
important business entities are either co-opted or swallowed up by the state, the days of the
command economy are over. Citizens are allowed to enjoy personal freedoms -- including
foreign travel and access to consumer goods -- that would have been unthinkable in the era of
Mao and Brezhnev.

A manifestation of this kind of thinking can be clearly seen by the curriculum of the
educational institutions of these states. Theses semi-authoritarian regimes actively promote or
enable the distortion of history through a nationalistic or extremist lens. This form of illiberal
education inculcates an attitude of hostility towards democracy and suspicion towards the outside
world within the minds of the next generation. In China, regime-authorized textbooks propagate
the notion; that calls for expanded human rights are an instrument for the West to “keep China
down.” History courses ignore or explain away the dark chapters in the country’s history during
the Communist era, including the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or the
Tiananmen massacre of 1989. In Russia, textbooks introduced at the Kremlin’s direction depict
Stalin as among the country’s greatest leaders and suggest that the Great Terror was product of
the times. In May 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev created a special commission to investigate
and counter falsified versions of history that damage Russia’s “international prestige.” In Iran,
school textbooks seek to perpetuate the regime’s theocratic ideology and promote an intolerant
and illiberal view of the world, while in Pakistan many of the country’s thousands of madrassas
teach children an intolerant theory of world affairs that demonizes those who do not subscribe to
an extreme interpretation of Islam.
10
http://www.willyhoops.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm 22/11/2009
 During the Cold War, the nature and goals of the dominant authoritarian states were
clearer. In contrast, modern autocrats, integrated into the global economy and participating in
many of the world's established financial and political institutions, present a murkier challenge.

So far, policymakers in democracies have struggled to identify an effective approach to

these threats. This is all the more worrying because the lack of a clear response is happening
alongside a deeper debate in the United States over the inclusion of "the fourth D" -- democracy,
as an integral part of U.S. foreign policy, along with defense, diplomacy, and development. And
nothing would please the new authoritarians more than to see D No. 4 drop from the lexicon.

CHAPTER 3 – CONCLUSION
 Most of the readers of this research work will believe that a conclusion to this argument
will basically be a summary of the points of how democracy trumps authoritarian rule. But to
their disappointment this is not what I intend to do, nor do I intend to praise authoritarianism as a
better form of government.

In the course of painstaking research for this project, my observations have led to the
shattering of many preconceived notions I had about political formations. I realized that
democracy is an idealized government, looks perfect only on paper and does not live up to its
reputations of the best form of governance. My observations have led to the logical conclusion
that in fact no government can be called perfect. Government is nothing but a mechanism to
govern people and its effectiveness can be gauged by its ability to take collective decisions and
enforce them. Hence, different people require different ways of governing themselves and the
only claim to legitimacy a government should have is whether it delivers the goods or not. So, in
my perception; if a government can successfully maintain law and order in a society, achieve
economic development and ensure progress and prosperity of the nation in general without
causing widespread internal revolts, then that government should be called legitimate regardless
of how they choose their leaders.

In drawing a comparative analysis between the two forms of governments, I will never be
able to morally justify an authoritarian rule as in my opinion no reason can qualify as an
explanation to call an individual or even a group of individuals as the supreme authority in a
state. Conversely, I would not sing accolades for democracy either. Democracy, in my opinion
can be described as a “headless chicken”, for power and accountability is so divided that any
decision making process will be arduous and time consuming and therefore make it highly
inefficient. It is ironical that the politics we despise is the very one which ensures we live in a
democracy.

In the end, one can summarize up as that the authoritarianism we once saw after the
world wars is no more; instead its politically correct form as semi-authoritarianism is what we
see today. Additionally, there is a new wave of authoritarian governments which pose a big
challenge to democracy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The Third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century
By Samuel P. Huntington, 1991 University of Oklahoma Press, U.S.A

2. Authoritarianism in an age of democratization

By Jason Brownlee, 2007 Cambridge University Press, New York

3. Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism

By Marina Ottaway, 2003 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Internet resources referred:

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism 20/11/2009

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization. 21/11/2009
3. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-globalization.htm 21/11/2009
4. http://www.willyhoops.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm 22/11/2009
5. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bd4868e-6806-11dd-8d3b 0000779fd18c.html?
nclick_check=1 22/11/2009
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009