Lahore College for Women

University, Lahore.
Department of Pol.Sci/IR/Pak.Studies
Paper:
“COMPARITIVE POLITICS”
Topic:
“AUTHORITARIANISM”
Presented to:
Dr. Muntzra Nazir

Prepared by:
Hira Arshad
Roll# 2577

MS Pol.Science
Semester I

Session 2010-2012

Acknowledgement
1
This term paper is assigned to us by Ms.Muntzra . I am highly obliged and owe
special thanks and unaccountable gratitude to Mam Muntzra whose
encouragement, guidance and advice made me to complete this paper. Her
instructions through out the work were valuable .This acknowledgement is due to
Lahore College for Women University for providing us environment conducive
enough to conduct our studies. Moreover we are very much Thankful to our
Parents who prayed for us and give us support.

Hira Arshad

2
 Contents

 INTRODUCTION
 MEANING
 DEFINITION
 CHARACTERISTICS
 EVOLUTION OF AUTHORITARIANISM
 AUTHORITARIAN COUNTIES
 CHINA
 NORTH KOREA
 CUBA
 IRAQ
 ANALYSIS

«Because democracy is not just about voting. In its original Greek

sense, democracy is the power of the people, and it is reached only
when citizens actually and directly participate in the process of decision

3
making, especially when it is about business that interests and affects
them. The process of construction of a genuinely democratic society, in
which the rights and freedoms of every citizen are guaranteed, must be
based on the development of social, civic and political organizations, in
which democracy is a daily practice. It is not possible to democratize a
society that does not experience democracy every day1». (1)

A
uthoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission
to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an
authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a
leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive,
unaccountable, and arbitrary power. Authoritarianism differs from totalitarianism in that
social and economic institutions exist that are not under the government's control.

1. The political practice or philosophical defense the idea that a leader or

government possesses moral or legal supremacy and the right to command
others without their consent. Although authoritarianism is sometimes considered
to involve a less egregious violation of human rights than totalitarianism, it is still
actively opposed to any form of democratic liberalism or libertarianism.(2)

Authoritarianism,  principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to

individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any
political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is
not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often
exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually
cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections.
(3)

4
 simply speaking, authoritarianism is The belief that power should be centralized.
In an authoritarian state citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their
lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal
choice. Authoritarianism generally presumes to know Truth, with a capital "T", and has
almost no tolerance of disagreement. It is characterised by moral and philosophical
certainty coupled with a taste for the use of force by the State. These systems suppress
"heretical" ideas. Totalitarian governments feel that the interests of the State are more
important than anything else -- it is the "totality" of all that is worthwhile.

Typically, the leadership of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that

uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is
no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life,
and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to
be directly challenging the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary,
intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be
conservative. (4)

The term authoritarianism can be applied to a great variety of contexts. It can

refer to authoritarian behavior, leadership styles, or personality types in families,
industrial enterprises, bureaucracies, and other forms of organizations. Here, it refers to
political regimes that fall under this broad label. The major characteristics of
authoritarian regimes include a limited political pluralism with restrictions on the
activities of interest groups and parties, a low level of social mobilization and popular
political participation, a dominantly "subject" or "parochial" political culture, and usually a
personalized form of leadership.

The term came into use in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when it
became necessary to distinguish hierarchically structured, traditional monarchical or
more recent "bonapartist" autocratic regimes from liberal democracies, on the one hand,
and all-encompassing "totalitarian" systems, on the other. Liberal democracies can be
defined with regard to three major dimensions: an open and competitive political
pluralism (usually in a multiparty system), a high level of political participation (as in fair

5
and free elections, referenda, etc.), and political institutions that guarantee a certain
separation of powers, the rule of law, and basic human rights (such as freedom of
expression, information, organization, religion, etc.). Totalitarian systems, at the other
extreme, are characterized by monistic, all-encompassing social and political
organizations (such as a single party; dependent unions; organizations for women,
youth, etc.), a high level of social mobilization (as in political rallies, high election
turnouts), an explicit, monolithic, absolutist ideology, and a strong repressive apparatus.
In fact, however, these distinctions cannot always be drawn precisely and some "gray"
areas exist between these types. In common usage, all nondemocratic systems are
lumped together as "dictatorships." Whereas the original use of this term in the Roman
republic referred to emergency powers for a limited period, today it implies all kinds of
arbitrary rule and political repression. Nevertheless, important qualitative differences
can be found among such nondemocratic regimes. (5)

CHARACTERISTICS

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power

maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses
political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the
state.

Authoritarianism emphases the rule of man over the rule of law, it includes
election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of unelected officials
behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules, which does
not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the
constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also embraces the informal and
unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if
elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary
deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.

6
 A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability
is maintained by control over and support of the military, a pervasive bureaucracy
staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization.

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate

performance to demands of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to
challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a
significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to
accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the
system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance,
authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling

party or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a democratic one
is referred to as democratization.

John Duckitt , suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism,

asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both
authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals,
expectations and conformities. Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, has a
basis of consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism.

Adorno identified the authoritarian personality type as having these

characteristics.
The authoritarian personality does not want to give orders, their
personality type wants to take orders. People with this type of personality seek
conformity, security, stability. They become anxious and insecure when events or
circumstances upset their previously existing world view. They are very intolerant
of any divergence from what they consider to be the normal (which is usually
conceptualized in terms of their religion, race, history, nationality, culture,
language, etc.) They tend to be very superstitious and lend credence to folktales
or interpretations of history that fit their preexisting definitions of reality (thus the

7
 Founding Fathers of the US are conceptualized of as supporters of white
nationalism.) They think in extremely stereotyped ways about minorities, women,
homosexuals, etc. They are thus very dualistic- the world is conceived in terms of
absolute right (their way) Vs. absolute wrong (the "other" whether African
(6)
American, liberal, intellectual, feminist, etc.)

EVOLUTION OF AUTHORITARIANISM

The evolution of Authoritarian governments or what I will term "Authoritarianism"

can be traced back to the ruins of European colonialism at the end of the 19 th century.

 In this period European countries colonized about 70% of the worlds land mass
in their search for raw materials, cheap labor, and markets for European industrial
products.

  In the process of colonialism Europe set up colonial regimes that served the
economic, social and political interests of the mother country while ignoring the
economic and political development of the colonial country.

  There were two types of European colonialism formal and informal. Formal
Empire or colonialism was when the European mother country would send its own
administrators to run the country. Informal empire is when native elite rule in the
interests of the European country. Often European countries would rely on a King,
Emperor, Shah, Sultan or other elite to do their bidding for them. The elite leaders
would be economically linked to the west. The colonial people would think they were
being ruled by their own people, when in fact they were being ruled by the native elite
now tied to the prerogatives of the European country. Regardless of the type of colonial
rule the usual result as no political modernization of any kind.

In this context these colonial regimes became bastions for raw materials, cheap
labor and markets for the Europeans and because of this never went through a
commercial revolution of economic modernization that would lead to the creation of a

8
middle class. The middle class is essential for the successful function and maintenance
of democracy and pluralist institutions so necessary for democratic regimes.

This historical and developmental situation continued throughout the early

decades of the 20th century and western powers relied on these dependent third world
(7)
elite to put down nationalist rebellions.

In the case of the US this occurred after the Spanish American War of 1898
when we acquired our first empire in the Caribbean and Asia. The US trained the police
and national guard of Philippines to stop nationalist rebellion against US rule. We did
this in Latin America as well.

The trade off was that the west would support authoritarian anti-democratic
regimes provided they could create political stability so necessary for a safe and stable
investment climate for Western Investors. In 1902 after Cuba became a colony of the
US under the Platt Amendment and US Army occupation reporters asked General
Wood in charge of the occupation what he meant by "political stability" Wood responded
with a laugh "I mean US investments earning 6%". And everybody laughed.

  By the end of WWII in 1945 and certainly with the advent of the Cold War in
1947, the creation and maintenance of authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Asia and
Africa was justified by the need to contain communism on a regional and global scale.

Examples of authoritarian regimes were Guatemala after 1954, Cuba in the

1950's under Bautista, Iran under the Shah in 1952, Zaire under Mobutu, the Philippines
under Marcos, Indonesia in 1968 under Suharto, South Korea under Syngman Rhee,
the entire history of South Vietnam, and Central America from the 1930's to the 1980's.

  After 1947 We would especially support authoritarian regimes who would sign
the GATT accords…thereby insuring their membership and loyalty to the global free
trade system administered by the US.

9
  It was also in this context that authoritarian or "corporatist" regimes were also
seen as countries that could rapidly develop using state-led development strategies
where the state would actively intervene in directing investment flow and the creation of
new industries and investment opportunities.

  This happened in Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and the
Philippines in the 1950's and 1960's, in Argentina in the 1970's, Chile in the 1980's.

  By using authoritarian forms of government such regimes could actively court

foreign investment and technologies. Also such regimes were attractive places for US
investment due to the lack regulation, and the prohibition of militant labor unions. This
meant that labor costs for manufacturing would be next to nothing.

  To a great degree the corporatist or authoritarian development model underwrote

the success of the so called "mini dragons of Asia" between 1960 and the present.
South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia.

  Also since the late 1980's with the advent of the Deng Xio-ping regime in China
communism was reformed from being anti-capitalist to being more pro-capitalist as
china has embraced what Chalmers Johnson has described as "soft totalitarianism".

  In this scheme, communist regimes begin to adopt western capitalism, foreign

investment, foreign technology and various economic freedoms without adopting the
political freedoms that in the west we see as inseparable from economic freedom. Such
a development scheme has been turned Market-Leninist, or "Free-Market Stalinism"

  The significance of authoritarian regimes since 1947 is that they are

governments that lack broad based popular support. They also have failed to develop
institutional structures to channel popular discontent or where the masses can make
political demands on the system. Due to these short comings in developing pluralist
state institutions the state cannot control popular pressures since the state has created
no avenues of control and therefore must rely on repression to establish order. This is
very significant in terms of the stability and balance of world politics.

10
  Eventually the authoritarian state could be overthrown by a popular movement. If
the US backed the authoritarian state the new popular regime could be very hostile and
anti-US. Examples of this are Cuba 1959 to the present, Vietnam until very recently,
Iran 1979 to the present, Nicaragua 1978-1988 are but a few modern examples.
Another significance of the authoritarian state is that it practices capitalism with military
precision and because of the close cooperation between the corporate and the
authoritarian state such states often engage in what can best be described as predatory
capitalism. The idea of such a tight collaboration between the state and private sector
allows the national corporations to not only get a bigger share of the US market but to
also destroy US industry through the process of dumping or selling below cost.

  We have seen this in the flat panel industry, auto parts, consumer electronics. In
the corporatist state such as South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia corporations competing in
target industries do not go bankrupt as the authoritarian government will refund their
losses.

   Since this is all state led development, authoritarian states that practice such
policies do not follow the logic of the free market as we do in the US.

  They practice what has been called "hot house" capitalism where all the crucial
elements of economic growth and development are controlled by the authoritarian state
including labor, investment flow, technology transfer, imports, and the state subsidizing
dumping and other practices of predatory capitalism.

  As has been previously stated authoritarian regimes that engage in state led
development create a corporate sector that is almost unbeatable in its target markets,
be it auto parts, consumer electronics, video games etc.  Such policies also lead to
extremely high economic growth rates. But in many respects the authoritarian state
eventually will become a victim of its own successes.

  Within a decade of the implementation of the previously mentioned authoritarian

policies a growing and dynamic middle class of managers, skilled workers, and

11
technocrats will be created--this middle class is essential for the maintenance and
continuation of the development policies.

  The managerial middle class will eventually begin to make demands on the
authoritarian system for political liberalization. In other words they want political power
commensurate with their growing economic power. That is exactly what Tien a Men
Square was all about in the late 1980's as the middle class youth spawned by Deng
Xio-ping's economic reformism and "soft totalitarianism" began to demand democracy
and political rights. The movement was crushed, but as history has shown since the
English Revolution of the late 1600's, democratic movements led by the middle class
will flare up again and again and eventually will be successful in creating a democratic
opening in the authoritarian structure of the Chinese government.

  In Chile this process has occurred and culminated with the resignation of
General Pinochet who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1989. While he led a politically
murderous regime Economically, the Pinochet government, with its austere controls,
slashed inflation and stimulated production between 1977 and 1981

It is occurring is South Korea as every spring the workers, students and middle
class engage the government in bloody clashes as they demand more of a pluralist
democratic system.

Following a series of mass protest demonstrations in 1987, President Chun

promised democratic reforms, including a direct presidential election. That election, held
on December 16, was won by the candidate of Chun's party, Roh Tae Woo. A new
constitution, approved in 1987, took effect in February 1988. In elections held in April,
(8)
opposition parties captured a majority of the National Assembly.

  In Taiwan, Martial law, in effect since 1949, was finally lifted in July 1987. Chiang
Ching-kuo died in January 1988 and was succeeded by Vice President Lee Teng-hui,
who became the first native of Taiwan to assume the presidency. The 1989 general

12
election, won by the Kuomintang, was the first in which opposition parties were allowed
to participate freely. It can be safe to say that European colonialism may not have
caused the creation of authoritarian regimes in the developing world, but it did stunt
economic and political development and the rise of a middle class society so necessary
for the creation of a democratic pluralist state.

  Often the states after independence in the 1950's and 1960's were led by elite
who were dependent and more responsive to the demands of the world economy and
the political intrigues of the Cold War than they were to the needs of their own citizens.
Often these state degenerated into what have been termed Kleptocracies where the
elite increased their wealth at the expense of the country…Zaire, Uganda, Sudan,
Angola, even Mexico could be put into this category.

  With the rise of the cold war and the US fear of communism we helped set up
and maintain brutal authoritarian regimes in places such as Iran, Central America,
Southeast Asia, and throughout the Pacific Rim. These were proxy states that we
expected could contain communist influence and be good trading partners with the US.
When these proxy regimes were overthrown by popular, mass-based movements the
new regimes were usually hostile to the US.

After 1947 and certainly by the 1960's authoritarian regimes were seen as good
for business by the US and the IMF and the World Bank and to a great degree Third
World countries were encouraged to follow authoritarian developmental strategies.

  Both directly and indirectly this would be significant, because authoritarian state-
led development would lead to the Asian Economic Miracle beginning in the 1960's and
continuing through the present.   

Repression will be used by the state, but in the end the state will have to give in
to the political demands of the middle and managerial classes or the very stability that
(9)
led to original economic expansion will be threatened by political instability.

13
AUTHORITARIAN COUNTRIES

CHINA

In the wake of the 1989 crackdown on prodemocracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen

Square, the Chinese Communist Party seemed morally bankrupt. Average Chinese
complained bitterly about graft and special privileges reserved for the Party's elite, and
few believed the Party's sloganeering about socialism when officials practiced ruthless
capitalism. The army, too, had lost face: The Tiananmen killings showed that the
"people's army" could open fire on the people themselves. The urban economy seemed
locked within an inefficient and corrupt iron framework of the old work-unit system. No
one either inside or outside China saw the country's authoritarian system as a model to
follow.

Twenty years later, the Chinese Communist Party has built a new popularity by
delivering staggering economic growth and cultivating a revived -- and potentially
dangerous -- Han Chinese nationalism. China's material successes, as seen in its
gleaming city skylines and piles of foreign currency holdings, suggest the government's
top priority is economic growth. The increasing socioeconomic diversity in Chinese
society suggests that the regime seeks liberalization and might one day throw open its
political system.

These are dangerous misconceptions. The Party's top priority remains what it has
always been: the maintenance of absolute political power. Economic growth has not
sparked democratic change, as one-party rule persists. Through a sophisticated
adaptation of its system -- including leveraging the market to maintain political control --
China's Communist Party has modernized its authoritarianism to fit the times.

The Party has utilized a sophisticated strategy to maintain control of its populace. While
growing the economy, it has kept the majority of wealth in the hands of an elite class of
business leaders, many of whom have willingly accepted authoritarian rule in exchange

14
for getting rich. Far from forming a middle class that might challenge authority, these
groups now have reason to join their rulers in repressing "instability" among the people.
Meanwhile, the Party has also deliberately stoked and shaped Chinese nationalism,
and many inside China now feel pride in the government's model of authoritarian
development, especially as the model of liberal capitalism staggers in the wake of the
global financial crisis.

Despite its tailored suits and suave diplomats, the Party also maintains a key tool in
inducing popular obedience that dates to Mao's era, a technique called "thoughtwork."
This ideological enforcement today operates more subtly than in the past, but it is still
highly effective. It is covert -- accomplished, for example, through confidential telephone
calls to newspaper editors, rather than in banner newspaper headlines. And it is
targeted: Whereas Mao Zedong-era campaigns aimed to transform society and even
human nature, thoughtwork today focuses on political issues that are vital to the Party's
rule, and lets the rest go.

The effects of thoughtwork are far reaching. The Party's activities include outright
censorship, but much of the rest of thoughtwork entails the active cultivation of views
that the government favors among the media, businesspeople and other opinion
leaders in Chinese society. This assertive side of thoughtwork has become especially
important in recent years. Many Chinese still harbor complaints about the government's
management of the economy, the environment and the country's political system.
Particularly in rural areas, it is easy to find people furious at corruption, land grabs,
worker exploitation, the wealth gap and thuggish repression.

But thoughtwork counters these complaints in two ways. First, the Party encourages the
belief that the central leadership remains pure and all of the problems are due to corrupt
or uninformed local officials. Second, the Party simply distracts its citizens. Demands for
clean air, for instance, are answered with 52 Olympic gold medals and massive
propaganda about the Games. Displaced homeowners are encouraged to worry about
the Dalai Lama "splitting the motherland."

15
The Party's adaptive methods of disruption and distraction have helped maintain control
during a period of rapid change, suggesting a durable domestic model of authoritarian
governance. Even more worryingly, the government is translating its success at home
into success abroad, where the "China model" of authoritarian capitalism is gaining
currency. Governments from Syria to Vietnam have sung its praises.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Authoritarian elites seek formulas for maintaining
their power while also growing their economies. In poor developing countries, average
citizens are vulnerable to this propaganda, which China spreads by extending aid and
investment with no human rights strings, running training programs in China for foreign
officials and students, opening cultural centers such as Confucius Institutes within
foreign universities, and offering diplomatic cover to repressive regimes at the United
Nations and elsewhere.

China has extended its hand of friendship to many different types of nations, from harsh
regimes -- including those of Sudan, Burma, Uzbekistan, North Korea and Zimbabwe --
whose leaders are seeking only financial assistance and protection at the U.N. and
other international bodies, to a diverse group of developing countries across Asia, Latin
America and Africa that seek economic, political and cultural ties to China. The scale of
this effort is difficult to calculate. For example, China trains at least 1,000 Central Asian
judicial and police officials annually, most of whom could be classified as working in
antidemocratic enterprises. Over the long term, Beijing plans to step up its training
programs for African officials. The scope of China's broader aid programs is similarly
difficult to quantify, but the World Bank estimates that China is now the largest lender to
African nations.

The China model, although a definite threat to democratic values, is no juggernaut. Its
appeal abroad will depend in large part on how the Chinese economy weathers the
global downturn, and how any stumbles it might encounter are perceived in the
developing world. Back at home, the Party is more frightened of its own citizenry than
most outside observers realize. Chinese citizens are increasingly aware of their
constitutional rights; a phenomenon that does not fit well with authoritarianism. The

16
Party may win the affection of foreign elites, but still faces dissent at home from local
nongovernmental organizations, civil society and elements of the media.

Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, China's leadership has modernized the
country's economy but also its authoritarianism. And because the system's flaws are as
glaring as its resilience, its challenge to democracy is a crisis in the original sense of the
(10)
word -- the course of events could turn either way.

 North Korea

North Korea is one of the world's most authoritarian and secretive nations, with an
economy in dire straits after decades of mismanagement.

Following World War II, the Korean peninsula was split, with the north coming under
Communist domination and the south portion eyeing Western ways.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was established as an authoritarian

socialist government in 1948.

Kim Jong Il has led North Korea since 1994 after the death of his father, Kim Il Sung,
the country's first leader.

The Korean Workers' Party controls the country.

North Korea has a permanent mission to the United Nations, but no diplomatic
(11)
representation in the United States.

North Korea may be a starving, friendless, authoritarian nation of 23 million

people, but it certainly got the world's attention when it exploded its first nuclear
weapon.

17
 What concerned the United States and the rest of the world was not just the
entry of another nation into the nuclear club, but also North Korea's habit of selling
whatever weapons systems it develops to anyone willing to pay for them.

The Kim regime has wielded the authoritarian toolbox to protect itself both from
popular revolt and from internal coups. Its social policies, use of ideas and ideology,
and use of force prevent the onset of revolution. Through numerous other tools (elite
co-optation, manipulation of foreign governments for financial aid, and the “coup-
proofing” of domestic institutions) the regime protects itself from coups d’etat. This
framework not only helps explain the past resilience of the regime, it predicts that its
position will remain secure for decades to come. Totalitarian North Korea will not fall to
popular revolt, and—because it will continue to receive the international aid needed to
co-opt elites—coups are also unlikely to occur or succeed. The regime is several stages
(12)
(and potentially decades) away from collapse.

CUBA

Since 1989 experts keep analyzing Cuba as a society in transition. Analysts

focus on “dissidents” as seeds of the future democratization of the country. Others
analyze the emerging civil society as made of the new self employed workers, workers
in the joint venture sector, afrocuban religious believers or Catholics.
But almost twenty years later, it seems that Cuba has not undergone a
transition. The question to be asked is therefore why and how the socialist
regime has managed to survive despite the fall of the USSR. The
concept of civil society has, since the fall of the USSR, been used in a
normative sense, which discards it to understand actual Cuban dynamics.
The notion of transition is used in a similar way, as if there were a specific
path Cuba was supposed to follow to finally reach democracy.
dissidents in Cuba are quite marginalized and generally
unable to discuss strategic issues with their fellow citizens who more
often than not know very little about the alternatives they try to elaborate.

18
As far as self-employed workers, they are new actors indeed but since
market reforms have been quite limited, their role is minor in Cuban politics
today. There is no status quo, but changing dynamics, which cannot
be understood without close scrutiny and extensive fieldwork.
Post-1989, the Cuban social experience is chaotic for the Cuban people
since laws and norms keep changing. Economic reforms were implemented
in the 1990s but the economy has since then been recentralized.

Cuban people have therefore learnt to cope with two competing norms: the
revolutionary official norm and the survival unofficial norm. It is impossible to
survive without engaging in illegal activities but at the same time it is
impossible to keep one’s status without abiding by the official rules, or claiming to do so.

cuban citizenshave only experienced State socialism and their knowledge of the
outside world is extremely partial and distorted by tales told by travelers and images
shown on Cuban television. They have been shaped by certain values and norms, the
revolutionary socialization, from which it is difficult to emancipate. That is why
ambivalence towards the regime is a fundamental characteristic of the Cuban social
experience.

We would expect dissidents to manage to frame that reality and emerge as

a voice for the silent Cuban population but they have thus far been unable
to do so. Essentially for two reasons: they are disconnected from everyday
life since they are permanently controlled by the Cuban State, and
their political choice is one of systemic opposition to the socialist regime.
Their discourse is consequently inaudible to the majority of the people.
There is a problem in terms of reality framing which partly explains
why though most people agree on what should be changed, nobody rises
to do so. Yet though the odds seemed against it, some groups of people do
manage to objectify their social experience and be creative so as to find a new grasp on
their individual and collective reality.
In Cuba nearly all forms of collective action must be organized

19
by the concerned official organizations. People are supposed to
voice their complaints during mass organizations meetings, and not to
take steps by themselves to solve their problems. But they often receive

little response from their leaders and therefore resort to illegal solutions.

It does not mean that State tactics have not provoked

tensions within the groups and between them. But up to now they have
managed to keep on working for more than ten years, which must be considered
as quite an achievement in a country where freedom of association
is not guaranteed.
Pressure, cooptation, marginalization can also be used to demonstrate,
especially to the international community, that there indeed exists
freedom of expression in Cuba. In changing times these new modes of

(13)
expression could also be used as possible resources for later purposes.

IRAQ

Background on Iraq:
Iraq did not exist as a state prior to 1921,Created from 3 Ottoman provinces of Mosul,
Baghdad, & Basra

British invasion and colonial administration in November 1914 British invasion

Imported monarchy when 1921 Faisal from Arabia becomes king. Iraq gains
formal independence in 1932.

Iraqi Politics, Phase 1

20
 R
S
K
B
ls
a
e
h
rd
1921-1936itu
r
Centralizing State vs Established social elites: Iraq as a British-allied
constitutional monarchy, 1921-1936

Major

Iraqi Politics, Phase II:

players

Phase III STATE OVER SOCIETY:

Iraq as a One Party State:

in Iraqi

The rise of the military & the creation of the Iraqi Republic (1936-1968)

The Baath Party and the Authoritarian Rule of Saddam Hussein, 1968-2003

The rise and rule of Saddam Hussein

Ruled through fear as well as charm and brilliant tactical maneuvering.

Politics,

 Was able to seize 4 main centers of power in Iraq- army, party, tribe, security
services

21
  His rise highlights the paradox of Iraq politics: on the one hand, a huge and
elaborate bureaucracy. On the other, real power centered on select few linked to SH
through bonds of kinship or a history of personal trust.

Major Players in Iraqi politics, 1968-1991/2003

Iraq is now nothing more than a token sovereign state. Iraq has a new
government; the former dictator Saddam Hussein has been hung; investment has come
to rebuild the country's infrastructure; yet there is still no hope of peace.

The Iraqi people are threatened, their territory is occupied, their government
does not run normally and their forces are accomplishing next to nothing. What's more,
fighting between different ethnic groups and religious sects has brought new challenges
(14)
to the stability of both Iraq and the whole Middle East.

A U.S. withdrawal seems already to be on the agenda. Though U.S. President

George W. Bush remarked recently that Iraq was not a second Vietnam, Americans
may not be willing to bear increasing casualties among their soldiers. A growing number
of Republicans are joining the Democrats in pressing for the United States to "give up"
Iraq, and international voices are also calling for a complete pull-out of foreign troops.

22
 Yet Iraq is not ready. Imagine what will happen if the foreign troops leave, and
Iraq has to function completely on its own. Will the terrorism stop? Will the government
run normally? Will the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds come together for reconciliation? Will
Iraq evolve as a model of democracy?

The answer to all these questions is an unequivocal "No." The Middle East has
throughout history been riddled with conflicts. If the foreigners leave and the lid comes
off Pandora's Box, evils will emerge one after another.

Regional power competitions will emerge. Iran, Israel and Egypt will compete for
resources and for the means to ensure their own security. Separatists will grab the
opportunity to try and create their own states; Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis will seek to
avenge what they see as wrongs against them. Terrorism will not disappear in the
foreseeable future. On the contrary, the forces of al-Qaida, the Taliban and the
Baathists will all seek to restore their power. Under these circumstances Iraq will more
closely resemble a powder keg than the "cradle of civilization."

For the sake of better governance, political caution is needed, even though it
may require adjusting to a dimmer view of the future. Democracy is a good thing, but
now is not the time to talk about it in Iraq. The need for stability and legitimate
governance is much more compelling. Iraq, in its current state of turmoil, stands little
chance as a testing ground for democracy.

Hence, an authoritarian regime may be necessary in the present Iraq. This does
not mean a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein, or even an overthrow of the
present Iraqi government. An authoritarian regime is different from a dictatorship.
Authoritarian governance stresses a concentration of power and a system of laws and
principles, while a dictatorship concentrates power in the hands of one individual and
bows to personal whim, regardless of laws and principles.

Authoritarian governance is not new in the world. Governments in some Asian

and African states, such as Singapore and Egypt, have done well under this style of
governance. Some states in Latin America are also in practice authoritarian regimes.

23
 In a failed state like Iraq, where state institutions do not function normally,
authoritarian governance may be more effective. With the withdrawal of foreign forces
the country is likely to be further destabilized, facing internal rivalries, regional
hegemonism and international terrorism. To deal with all these factors, a concentration
of power may be more effective than a democratic government.

Under a strong centralized leadership, the functions of government can be

normalized. Only after that does it make sense to talk about setting up a democracy. As
(15)
an interim measure, an authoritarian government may be Iraq's best option.

24
 REFRENCES

1. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/documents/Goeffray7_000.pdf
2. http://www.ismbook.com/authoritarianism.html
3. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism
4. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarianism
5. http://science.jrank.org/pages/7513/Authoritarianism-Overview.html

6. http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld007.htm
7. Alan r. ball, ”Modern politics and government”, (London:mcmillan,1983) P.43
8. Rod hague, martin harop, “comparative government and politics”, (new
York:EL.BS,2010) PP. 50-55

9. http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/authoritarian%20regimes.html
10. Rod hague, Op.cit, P.56
11. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20208/pyongyangs_survival_strat
egy.html

12. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/7/9/0/6/p2790
64_index.html

13. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/documents/Goeffray7_000.pdf
14. Gregory s. Mahler, comparative politics: an institutional and cross national
approach,(india: pearson education,1982) P.126

15. Arabia today,18 February 2011

25
 BIBLOGRAPHY

 Ball, Alan r. , ”Modern politics and government”, (London:Mcmillan,1983)

 hague Rod, harop martin, “comparative government and politics”, (new
York:EL.BS,2010)
 Mahler, Gregory s., comparative politics: an institutional and cross
national approach,(india: pearson education,1982)

 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/documents/Goeffray7_000.
pdf
 http://www.ismbook.com/authoritarianism.html
 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism
 http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarianism
 http://science.jrank.org/pages/7513/Authoritarianism-Overview.html

 http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld007.htm

 http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/authoritarian%20regimes.html
 http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20208/pyongyangs_surviva
l_strategy.html

 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/7/9/0/6/
p279064_index.html

 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/documents/Goeffray7_000.
pdf

 Arabia today,18 February 2011

26
27