How have non-democratic regimes endured?

What is a non-democratic regime?

Non-democratic regimes come in many different forms each using a variety of methods to
maintain power. Such regimes are much more than a simple lack of democracy, rather they
are in a general sense political regimes that is controlled by a small number of individuals
that are not accountable to the public and where the public have very little to no say in how
the country is run. However no two non-democratic regimes are the same and each uses a
variety of methods to maintain power over the state. While some of these regimes use
coercion and force to maintain control over the state, such as the military junta in
Myanmar, controlling the state through the direct threat of violence others choose put up a
front of being democratic such as by holding elections but using populist ideology to
maintain control over the people, there by gaining some degree of legitimacy why still
maintaining a high degree of power over the state, this is often referred to as electoral
authoritarianism (Gandhi, J. Lust-Okar, E. 2009).

How have non-democratic regimes endured

Non-democratic regimes will use many differing methods to maintain power over the state,
and while each of these methods have both advantages and disadvantages no one methods
will be used in isolation.
One essential method for maintaining power within a non-democratic regime is maintaining
good financial health and keeping control over the sources of wealth the nation has access
too. A non-democratic state the does not maintain good finances and resources is one that
is doomed to fail as without such things it will not be able to support the coercive apparatus
needed to supress the people or keep any kind of forging relations. One example of a state
that has successfully done this is Saudi Arabia, the house of Saud has maintained control
over the countries vast oil wealth, allowing it to both buy foreign support through the sale
of oil and separating its means of wealth generation from the people, giving the house of
Saud much greater control, this is what is commonly referred to as a “Rentier state”.
Another essential method for non-democratic regimes to keep power is the control and
suppression of civil society and opposition movements. In such regimes people are
discouraged and prevented from forming civil societies or opposition movements that may
threaten the leader, this suppression is typically justified through securitisation, or the use
of fear and the perception of an outside threat being used to justify greater levels of
security and authoritarianism, such as in Egypt where the leader used the perceived threat
of Israeli invasion to justify suppression of protests and the formation of civil societies
(Brownlee, J. 2007).

An excellent implementation of all of these methods can be seen in the government of

Vladimir Putin. In March of 2018 Vladimir Putin won the Russian election by an
overwhelming margin, this was achieved through the governments control over the media,
using it to distribute propaganda that emphasized the strength and success of Putin while
demonizing his opposition, by doing this he can discredit the opposition and control the
population (Bogaards, M. 2009). This demonstrates the Russian regime’s ability to control
civils societies and opposition, by oppressing and marginalising civil societies that stand in
opposition to Putin and the regime these groups are discouraged from forming in the first
place and are limited in their ability to effectively oppose the government. Like other non-
democratic regimes Putin also uses a perceived foreign threat to justify the oppression of
these civil societies, declaring them as foreign ages seeking to undermine the stability of the
government. The Russian regime also has a total monopoly on the sources of wealth within
the country. Through his control over the nation’s wealth Putin is able to spend this wealth
in a way that can keep the regime in power as various sections of the population are
dependant on this wealth and resources. Lastly Putin removed all forms of opposition either
by legal maneuverers or by assassination.

Conclusion
Non-democratic and authoritarian regimes often look to each other for ways of maintaining
their power over the state and in many ways Putin and the Russian regime and became the
model for authoritarianism. By expertly narrowing the space for civil societies to exist in and
controlling the opposition Putin has created a climate where any potential threat to his
regime from civil societies are demonised, oppressed and labelled as foreign agents that
seek to harm the country thus preventing them for posing any kind of serious threat to the
regime. Putin has also maintained economic control over Russia’s wealth and resources,
allowing him to properly maintain the apparatus of coercion which is needed to control the
population and buy forging support from other nations, providing a sense of legitimacy
through international recognition to the regime.

Bibliography
Gandhi, J. Lust-Okar, E. (2009). Elections under Authoritarianism, Annual Review of Political
Science. Available at:
https://www-annualreviews-org.ezproxy-s1.stir.ac.uk/doi/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.0601
06.095434#abstractSection
Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratisation. Cambridge university
press, London.
Bogaards, M. (2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral
authoritarianism. Democratization. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy-
s1.stir.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/13510340902777800
Foster, K. (2001). Associations in the Embrace of an Authoritarian State: State Domination of
Society? Studies in Comparative International Development. Available at: https://link-
springer-com.ezproxy-s1.stir.ac.uk/article/10.1007/BF02732709