Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 06 (1)
Chapter 06 (1)
Authoritarianism is a polit ical syst em charact erized by t he reject ion of democracy and polit ical
pluralit y. It involves t he use of st rong cent ral power t o preserve t he polit ical status quo, and
reduct ions in t he rule of law, separat ion of powers, and democrat ic vot ing.[1][2] Polit ical scient ist s
have creat ed many t ypologies describing variat ions of aut horit arian forms of government .[2]
Aut horit arian regimes may be eit her aut ocrat ic or oligarchic and may be based upon t he rule of a
part y or t he milit ary.[3][4] St at es t hat have a blurred boundary bet ween democracy and
aut horit arianism have some t imes been charact erized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or
"compet it ive aut horit arian" st at es.[5][6][7]
The polit ical scient ist Juan Linz, in an influent ial[8] 1964 work, An Authoritarian Regime: Spain,
defined aut horit arianism as possessing four qualit ies:
Aut horit arianism also t ends t o embrace t he informal and unregulat ed exercise of polit ical power,
a leadership t hat is "self-appoint ed and even if elect ed cannot be displaced by cit izens' free
choice among compet it ors", t he arbit rary deprivat ion of civil libert ies and lit t le t olerance for
meaningful opposit ion.[18] A range of social cont rols also at t empt t o st ifle civil societ y while
polit ical st abilit y is maint ained by cont rol over and support of t he armed forces, a bureaucracy
st affed by t he regime and creat ion of allegiance t hrough various means of socializat ion and
indoct rinat ion.[18] Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart ident ify aut horit arianism in polit icians and
polit ical part ies by looking for values of securit y, conformit y, and obedience.[20]
Aut horit arianism is marked by "indefinit e polit ical t enure" of t he ruler or ruling part y (oft en in a
one-part y st at e) or ot her aut horit y.[18] The t ransit ion from an aut horit arian syst em t o a more
democrat ic form of government is referred t o as democrat izat ion.[18]
The Soviet Russia Const it ut ion of 1918, t he first chart er of t he new Russian Socialist Federat ed
Soviet Republic (RSFSR), was described by Vladimir Lenin as a "revolut ionary" document . It was,
he said, unlike any const it ut ion draft ed by a nat ion-st at e.[26] The concept of "aut horit arian
const it ut ionalism" has been developed by legal scholar Mark Tushnet .[27] Tushnet dist inguishes
aut horit arian const it ut ionalist regimes from "liberal const it ut ionalist " regimes ("t he sort familiar in
t he modern West , wit h core commit ment s t o human right s and self-governance implement ed by
means of varying inst it ut ional devices") and from purely aut horit arian regimes (which reject t he
idea of human right s or const raint s on leaders' power).[27] He describes aut horit arian
const it ut ionalist regimes as (1) aut horit arian dominant -part y st at es t hat (2) impose sanct ions
(such as libel judgment s) against , but do not arbit rarily arrest , polit ical dissident s; (3) permit
"reasonably open discussion and crit icism of it s policies"; (4) hold "reasonably free and fair
elect ions", wit hout syst emic int imidat ion, but "wit h close at t ent ion t o such mat t ers as t he
drawing of elect ion dist rict s and t he creat ion of part y list s t o ensure as best it can t hat it will
prevail – and by a subst ant ial margin"; (5) reflect at least occasional responsiveness t o public
opinion; and (6) creat e "mechanisms t o ensure t hat t he amount of dissent does not exceed t he
level it regards as desirable." Tushnet cit es Singapore as an example of an aut horit arian
const it ut ionalist st at e, and connect s t he concept t o t hat of hybrid regimes.[27]
Economy
Scholars such as Seymour Lipset ,[28] Carles Boix, Susan St okes,[29] Diet rich Rueschemeyer,
Evelyne St ephens and John St ephens[30] argue t hat economic development increases t he
likelihood of democrat izat ion. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi argue t hat while economic
development makes democracies less likely t o t urn aut horit arian, t here is insufficient evidence t o
conclude t hat development causes democrat izat ion (t urning an aut horit arian st at e int o a
democracy).[31]
Eva Bellin argues t hat under cert ain circumst ances t he bourgeoise and labor are more likely t o
favor democrat izat ion, but less so under ot her circumst ances.[32] Economic development can
boost public support for aut horit arian regimes in t he short -t o-medium t erm.[33]
According t o Michael Albert us, most land reform programs t end t o be implement ed by
aut horit arian regimes t hat subsequent ly wit hhold propert y right s from t he beneficiaries of t he
land reform. Aut horit arian regimes do so t o gain coercive leverage over rural populat ions.[34]
Institutions
Aut horit arian regimes t ypically incorporat e similar polit ical inst it ut ions t o t hat of democrat ic
regimes, such as legislat ures and judiciaries, alt hough t hey may serve different purposes.
Democrat ic regimes are marked by inst it ut ions t hat are essent ial t o economic development and
individual freedom, including represent at ive legislat ures and compet it ive polit ical part ies.[35][36]
Most aut horit arian regimes embrace t hese polit ical st ruct ures, but use it in a way t hat reinforces
t heir power.[35] Aut horit arian legislat ures, for example, are forums t hrough which leaders may
enhance t heir bases of support , share power, and monit or elit es.[37] Addit ionally, aut horit arian
part y syst ems are ext remely unst able and unconducive t o part y development , largely due t o
monopolist ic pat t erns of aut horit y.[38] Judiciaries may be present in aut horit arian st at es where
t hey serve t o repress polit ical challengers, inst it ut ionalize punishment , and undermine t he rule of
law.[39]
Democrat ic and aut horit arian arguably differ most prominent ly in t heir elect ions. Democrat ic
elect ions are generally inclusive, compet it ive, and fair.[40] In most inst ances, t he elect ed leader is
appoint ed t o act on behalf of t he general will. Aut horit arian elect ions, on t he ot her hand, are
frequent ly subject t o fraud and ext reme const raint s on t he part icipat ion of opposing part ies.[38]
Aut ocrat ic leaders employ t act ics like murdering polit ical opposit ion and paying elect ion
monit ors t o ensure vict ory.[35][41] Despit e t his, t he proport ion of aut horit arian regimes wit h
elect ions and support part ies has risen in recent years.[35] This is largely due t o t he increasing
popularit y of democracies and elect oral aut ocracies, leading aut horit arian regimes t o imit at e
democrat ic regimes in hopes of receiving foreign aid and dodging crit icism.[35][42]
According t o a 2018 st udy, most part y-led dict at orships regularly hold popular elect ions. Prior t o
t he 1990s, most of t hese elect ions had no alt ernat ive part ies or candidat es for vot ers t o
choose. Since t he end of t he Cold War, about t wo-t hirds of elect ions in aut horit arian syst ems
allow for some opposit ion, but t he elect ions are st ruct ured in a way t o heavily favor t he
incumbent aut horit arian regime.[43] In 2020, almost half of all aut horit arian syst ems had mult i-
part y government s.[44] Cabinet appoint ment s by an aut horit arian regime t o out siders can
consolidat e t heir rule by dividing t he opposit ion and co-opt ing out siders.[44]
Hindrances t o free and fair elect ions in aut horit arian syst ems may include:[43]
Manipulation of information
According t o a 2019 st udy by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, aut horit arian regimes have over
t ime become less reliant on violence and mass repression t o maint ain cont rol. The st udy shows
inst ead t hat aut horit arians have increasingly resort ed t o manipulat ion of informat ion as a means
of cont rol. Aut horit arians increasingly seek t o creat e an appearance of good performance,
conceal st at e repression, and imit at e democracy.[49]
While aut horit arian regimes invest considerably in propaganda out of a belief t hat it enhances
regime survival, scholars have offered mixed views as t o whet her propaganda is effect ive.[50]
Polit ical scient ist Theodore M. Vest al writ es t hat aut horit arian polit ical syst ems may be
weakened t hrough inadequat e responsiveness t o eit her popular or elit e demands and t hat t he
aut horit arian t endency t o respond t o challenges by exert ing t ight er cont rol, inst ead of by
adapt ing, may compromise t he legit imacy of an aut horit arian st at e and lead t o it s collapse.[18]
One except ion t o t his general t rend is t he endurance of t he aut horit arian rule of t he Chinese
Communist Part y which has been unusually resilient among aut horit arian regimes. Nat han posit s
t hat t his can be at t ribut ed t o four fact ors such as (1) "t he increasingly norm-bound nat ure of it s
succession polit ics"; (2) "t he increase in merit ocrat ic as opposed t o fact ional considerat ions in
t he promot ion of polit ical elit es"; (3) "t he different iat ion and funct ional specializat ion of
inst it ut ions wit hin t he regime"; and (4) "t he est ablishment of inst it ut ions for polit ical part icipat ion
and appeal t hat st rengt hen t he CCP's legit imacy among t he public at large."[51]
Some scholars have challenged not ions t hat aut horit arian st at es are inherent ly brit t le syst ems
t hat require repression and propaganda t o make people comply wit h t he aut horit arian regime.
Adam Przeworski has challenged t his, not ing t hat while aut horit arian regimes do t ake act ions
t hat serve t o enhance regime survival, t hey also engage in mundane everyday governance and
t heir subject s do not hold a post ure t owards t he regime at all moment s of t heir life. He writ es,
"People in aut ocracies do not incessant ly live under t he shadow of dramat ic hist orical event s;
t hey lead everyday rout ine lives."[52] Similarly, Thomas Pepinsky has challenged t he common
ment al image of an aut horit arian st at e as one of grim t ot alit arianism, desperat e hardship, st rict
censorship, and dict at orial orders of murder, t ort ure and disappearances. He writ es, "life in
aut horit arian st at es is most ly boring and t olerable."[53]
Violence
Yale Universit y polit ical scient ist Milan Svolik argues t hat violence is a common charact erist ic of
aut horit arian syst ems. Violence t ends t o be common in aut horit arian st at es because of a lack of
independent t hird part ies empowered t o set t le disput es bet ween t he dict at or, regime allies,
regime soldiers and t he masses.[45]
Aut horit arians may resort t o measures referred t o as coup-proofing (st ruct ures t hat make it hard
for any small group t o seize power). Coup-proofing st rat egies include st rat egically placing family,
et hnic, and religious groups in t he milit ary; creat ing of an armed force parallel t o t he regular
milit ary; and developing mult iple int ernal securit y agencies wit h overlapping jurisdict ion t hat
const ant ly monit or one anot her.[54] Research shows t hat some coup-proofing st rat egies reduce
t he risk of coups occurring[55][56] and reduce t he likelihood of mass prot est s.[57] However, coup-
proofing reduces milit ary effect iveness,[58][59][60][61] and limit s t he rent s t hat an incumbent can
ext ract .[62] A 2016 st udy shows t hat t he implement at ion of succession rules reduce t he
occurrence of coup at t empt s.[63] Succession rules are believed t o hamper coordinat ion effort s
among coup plot t ers by assuaging elit es who have more t o gain by pat ience t han by plot t ing.[63]
According t o polit ical scient ist s Curt is Bell and Jonat han Powell, coup at t empt s in neighboring
count ries lead t o great er coup-proofing and coup-relat ed repression in a region.[64] A 2017 st udy
finds t hat count ries' coup-proofing st rat egies are heavily influenced by ot her count ries wit h
similar hist ories.[65] A 2018 st udy in t he Journal of Peace Research found t hat leaders who
survive coup at t empt s and respond by purging known and pot ent ial rivals are likely t o have longer
t enures as leaders.[66] A 2019 st udy in Conflict Management and Peace Science found t hat
personalist dict at orships are more likely t o t ake coup-proofing measures t han ot her aut horit arian
regimes; t he aut hors argue t hat t his is because "personalist s are charact erized by weak
inst it ut ions and narrow support bases, a lack of unifying ideologies and informal links t o t he
ruler."[67]
According t o a 2019 st udy, personalist dict at orships are more repressive t han ot her forms of
dict at orship.[68]
Typologies
According t o Yale professor Juan José Linz t here a t hree main t ypes of polit ical regimes t oday:
democracies, t ot alit arian regimes and, sit t ing bet ween t hese t wo, aut horit arian regimes (wit h
hybrid regimes).[69][70]
Similar terms
Subtypes
Several subt ypes of aut horit arian regimes have been ident ified by Linz and ot hers.[78] Linz
ident ified t he t wo most basic subt ypes as t radit ional aut horit arian regimes and bureaucrat ic-
milit ary aut horit arian regimes:
Bureaucratic-military authoritarian
regimes are those "governed by a
coalition of military officers and
technocrats who act pragmatically
(rather than ideologically) within the
limits of their bureaucratic mentality."[78]
Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is
best to distinguish "simple military
authoritarian regimes" from
"bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in
which "a powerful group of technocrats
uses the state apparatus to try to
rationalize and develop the economy"
such South Korea under Park Chung-
hee.[78]
According t o Barbara Geddes, t here are seven t ypologies of aut horit arian regimes: dominant
part y regimes, milit ary regime, personalist regimes, monarchies, oligarchic regimes, indirect
milit ary regimes, or hybrids of t he first t hree.[79]
Subt ypes of aut horit arian regimes ident ified by Linz are corporat ist or organic-st at ist ic, racial and
et hnic "democracy" and post -t ot alit arian.[78]
A t ypology of aut horit arian regimes by polit ical scient ist s Brian Lai and Dan Slat er includes four
cat egories:
John Duckit t suggest s a link bet ween aut horit arianism and collect ivism, assert ing t hat bot h
st and in opposit ion t o individualism.[88] Duckit t writ es t hat bot h aut horit arianism and collect ivism
submerge individual right s and goals t o group goals, expect at ions and conformit ies.[89]
According t o St even Levit sky and Lucan Way, aut horit arian regimes t hat are creat ed in social
revolut ions are far more durable t han ot her kinds of aut horit arian regimes.[90]
Aut horit arianism and democracy are not necessarily fundament al opposit es and may be t hought
of as poles at opposit e ends of a scale, so t hat it is possible for some democracies t o possess
aut horit arian element s, and for an aut horit arian syst em t o have democrat ic element s.[92][93][94]
Aut horit arian regimes may also be part ly responsive t o cit izen grievances, alt hough t his is
generally only regarding grievances t hat do not undermine t he st abilit y of t he regime.[95][96] An
illiberal democracy, or procedural democracy, is dist inguished from liberal democracy, or
subst ant ive democracy, in t hat illiberal democracies lack feat ures such as t he rule of law,
prot ect ions for minorit y groups, an independent judiciary and t he real separat ion of
powers.[97][98][99][100]
A furt her dist inct ion t hat liberal democracies have rarely made war wit h one anot her; research
has ext ended t he t heory and finds t hat more democrat ic count ries t end t o have few wars
(somet imes called milit arized int erst at e disput es) causing fewer bat t le deat hs wit h one anot her
and t hat democracies have far fewer civil wars.[101][102]
Research shows t hat t he democrat ic nat ions have much less democide or murder by
government . Those were also moderat ely developed nat ions before applying liberal democrat ic
policies.[103] Research by t he World Bank suggest s t hat polit ical inst it ut ions are ext remely
import ant in det ermining t he prevalence of corrupt ion and t hat parliament ary syst ems, polit ical
st abilit y and freedom of t he press are all associat ed wit h lower corrupt ion.[104]
A 2006 st udy by economist Albert o Abadie has concluded t hat t errorism is most common in
nat ions wit h int ermediat e polit ical freedom. The nat ions wit h t he least t errorism are t he most
and least democrat ic nat ions, and t hat "t ransit ions from an aut horit arian regime t o a democracy
may be accompanied by t emporary increases in t errorism."[105] St udies in 2013 and 2017 similarly
found a nonlinear relat ionship bet ween polit ical freedom and t errorism, wit h t he most t errorist
at t acks occurring in part ial democracies and t he fewest in "st rict aut ocracies and full-fledged
democracies."[106] A 2018 st udy by Amichai Magen demonst rat ed t hat liberal democracies and
polyarchies not only suffer fewer t errorist at t acks as compared t o ot her regime t ypes, but also
suffer fewer casualt ies in t errorist at t acks as compared t o ot her regime t ypes, which may be
at t ribut ed t o higher-qualit y democracies' responsiveness t o t heir cit izens' demands, including
"t he desire for physical safet y", result ing in "invest ment in int elligence, infrast ruct ure prot ect ion,
first responders, social resilience, and specialized medical care" which avert s casualt ies.[106]
Magen also st at ed t hat t errorism in closed aut ocracies sharply increased st art ing in 2013.[106]
Wit hin nat ional democrat ic government s, t here may be subnat ional aut horit arian enclaves. A
prominent examples of t his includes t he Sout hern Unit ed St at es aft er Reconst ruct ion, as well as
areas of cont emporary Argent ina and Mexico.[107]
Compet it ive aut horit arian regimes differ from fully aut horit arian regimes in t hat elect ions are
regularly held, t he opposit ion can openly operat e wit hout a high risk of exile or imprisonment and
"democrat ic procedures are sufficient ly meaningful for opposit ion groups t o t ake t hem seriously
as arenas t hrough which t o cont est for power."[108] Compet it ive aut horit arian regimes lack one or
more of t he t hree charact erist ics of democracies such as free elect ions (i.e. elect ions unt aint ed
by subst ant ial fraud or vot er int imidat ion); prot ect ion of civil libert ies (i.e. t he freedom of speech,
press and associat ion) and an even playing field (in t erms of access t o resources, t he media and
legal recourse).[111]
Tot alit arianism is a label used by various polit ical scient ist s t o charact erize t he most t yrannical
st rain of aut horit arian syst ems; in which t he ruling elit e, oft en subservient t o a dict at or, exert
near-t ot al cont rol of t he social, polit ical, economic, cult ural and religious aspect s of societ y in
t he t errit ories under it s governance.[126]
Linz dist inguished new forms of aut horit arianism from personalist ic dict at orships and t ot alit arian
st at es, t aking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalist ic dict at orships, new forms of
aut horit arianism have inst it ut ionalized represent at ion of a variet y of act ors (in Spain's case,
including t he milit ary, t he Cat holic Church, Falange, monarchist s, t echnocrat s and ot hers). Unlike
t ot alit arian st at es, t he regime relies on passive mass accept ance rat her t han popular support .[73]
According t o Juan Linz t he dist inct ion bet ween an aut horit arian regime and a t ot alit arian one is
t hat an aut horit arian regime seeks t o suffocat e polit ics and polit ical mobilizat ion while
t ot alit arianism seeks t o cont rol and ut ilize t hem.[69] Aut horit arianism primarily differs from
t ot alit arianism in t hat social and economic inst it ut ions exist t hat are not under government al
cont rol. Building on t he work of Yale polit ical scient ist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of t he Universit y
of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined t he charact erist ics of aut horit arian and t ot alit arian
dict at ors and organized t hem in a chart :[72]
Totalitarianism Authoritarianism
Sondrol argues t hat while bot h aut horit arianism and t ot alit arianism are forms of aut ocracy, t hey
differ in t hree key dichot omies:
(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian
dictators develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic
interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic
image.
Compared t o t ot alit arianism, "t he aut horit arian st at e st ill maint ains a cert ain dist inct ion bet ween
st at e and societ y. It is only concerned wit h polit ical power and as long as t hat is not cont est ed
it gives societ y a cert ain degree of libert y. Tot alit arianism, on t he ot her hand, invades privat e life
and asphyxiat es it ."[128] Anot her dist inct ion is t hat "aut horit arianism is not animat ed by ut opian
ideals in t he way t ot alit arianism is. It does not at t empt t o change t he world and human
nat ure."[128] Carl Joachim Friedrich writ es t hat "a t ot alist ideology, a part y reinforced by a secret
police, and monopoly cont rol of ... indust rial mass societ y" are t he t hree feat ures of t ot alit arian
regimes t hat dist inguish t hem from ot her aut ocracies.[128]
Greg Yudin, a professor of polit ical philosophy at t he Moscow School of Social and Economic
Sciences, argues "polit ical passivit y and civic disengagement " are "key feat ures" of
aut horit arianism, while t ot alit arianism relies on "mass mobilizat ion, t error and homogeneit y of
beliefs".[129]
Economic effects
In 2010, Dani Rodrik wrot e t hat democracies out perform aut ocracies in t erms of long-t erm
economic growt h, economic st abilit y, adjust ment s t o ext ernal economic shocks, human capit al
invest ment , and economic equalit y.[130] A 2019 st udy by Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual
Rest repo, and James A. Robinson found t hat democracy increases GDP per capit a by about 20
percent over t he long-t erm.[131] According t o Amart ya Sen, no funct ioning liberal democracy has
ever suffered a large-scale famine.[132] St udies suggest t hat several healt h indicat ors (life
expect ancy and infant and mat ernal mort alit y) have a st ronger and more significant associat ion
wit h democracy t han t hey have wit h GDP per capit a, size of t he public sect or or income
inequalit y.[133]
One of t he few areas t hat some scholars have t heorized t hat aut ocracies may have an
advant age, is in indust rializat ion.[134] In t he 20t h cent ury, Seymour Mart in Lipset argued t hat low-
income aut horit arian regimes have cert ain t echnocrat ic "efficiency-enhancing advant ages" over
low-income democracies t hat gives aut horit arian regimes an advant age in economic
development .[135] By cont rast , Mort on H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinst ein
(2005) argue t hat democracies "realize superior development performance" over aut horit arianism,
point ing out t hat poor democracies are more likely t o have st eadier economic growt h and less
likely t o experience economic and humanit arian cat ast rophes (such as refugee crises) t han
aut horit arian regimes; t hat civil libert ies in democracies act as a curb on corrupt ion and misuse of
resources; and t hat democracies are more adapt able t han aut horit arian regimes.[135]
Historical trends
World War II saw t he defeat of t he Axis powers by t he Allied powers. All t he Axis powers (Nazi
Germany, Fascist It aly and Imperial Japan) had t ot alit arian or aut horit arian government s, and t wo
of t he t hree were replaced by government s based on democrat ic const it ut ions. The Allied
powers were an alliance of Democrat ic st at es and (lat er) t he Communist Soviet Union. At least in
West ern Europe t he init ial post -war era embraced pluralism and freedom of expression in areas
t hat had been under cont rol of aut horit arian regimes. The memory of fascism and Nazism was
denigrat ed. The new Federal Republic of Germany banned it s expression. In react ion t o t he
cent ralism of t he Nazi st at e, t he new const it ut ion of West Germany (Federal Republic of
Germany) exercised "separat ion of powers" and placed "law enforcement firmly in t he hands" of
t he sixt een Länder or st at es of t he republic, not wit h t he federal German government , at least
not at first .[136]
Cult urally t here was also a st rong sense of ant i-aut horit arianism based on ant i-fascism in
West ern Europe. This was at t ribut ed t o t he act ive resist ance from occupat ion and t o fears
arising from t he development of superpowers.[137] Ant i-aut horit arianism also became associat ed
wit h count ercult ural and bohemian movement s such as t he Beat Generat ion in t he 1950s,[138] t he
hippies in t he 1960s[139] and punks in t he 1970s.[140]
In Sout h America, Argent ina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay moved away from
dict at orships t o democracy bet ween 1982 and 1990.[141]
Wit h t he fall of t he Berlin Wall in 1989 and t he Soviet Union in 1991, t he ot her
aut horit arian/t ot alit arian "half" of t he Allied Powers of World War II collapsed. This led not so
much t o revolt against aut horit y in general, but t o t he belief t hat aut horit arian st at es (and st at e
cont rol of economies) were out dat ed.[142] The idea t hat "liberal democracy was t he final form
t oward which all polit ical st riving was direct ed"[143] became very popular in West ern count ries
and was celebrat ed in Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man.[143]
According t o Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all t he new st at es t hat st umbled out of t he ruins of t he
Soviet bloc, except Uzbekist an and Turkmenist an, seemed indeed t o be moving t owards
democracy in t he early 1990s" as were t he count ries of East Cent ral Europe and t he Balkans.[144]
In December 2010, t he Arab Spring arose in response t o unrest over economic st agnat ion but
also in opposit ion t o oppressive aut horit arian regimes, first in Tunisia, and spreading t o Libya,
Egypt , Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere. Regimes were t oppled in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and
part ially in Yemen while ot her count ries saw riot s, civil wars or insurgencies. Most Arab Spring
revolut ions failed t o lead t o enduring democrat izat ion. In t he decade following t he Arab Spring,
of t he count ries in which an aut ocracy was t oppled in t he Arab spring, only Tunisia had become a
genuine democracy; Egypt backslid t o ret urn t o a milit ary-run aut horit arian st at e, while Libya,
Syria and Yemen experienced devast at ing civil wars.[145][146]
2000s authoritarian revival
Since 2005, observers not ed what some have called a "democrat ic recession",[143][147] alt hough
some such as St even Levit sky and Lucan Way have disput ed t hat t here was a significant
democrat ic decline before 2013.[147] In 2018, t he Freedom House declared t hat from 2006 t o
2018 "113 count ries" around t he world showed "a net decline" in "polit ical right s and civil libert ies"
while "only 62" experienced "a net improvement ."[148] It s 2020 report marked t he fourt eent h
consecut ive year of declining scores.[149] By 2020, all count ries marked as "not free" by Freedom
House had also developed pract ices of t ransnat ional repression, aiming t o police and cont rol
dissent beyond st at e borders.[150]
Michael Ignat ieff wrot e t hat Fukuyama's idea of liberalism vanquishing aut horit arianism "now
looks like a quaint art ifact of a vanished unipolar moment "[143] and Fukuyama himself expressed
concern.[142] By 2018, only one Arab Spring uprising (t hat in Tunisia) result ed in a t ransit ion t o
const it ut ional democrat ic governance [154] and a "resurgence of aut horit arianism and Islamic
ext remism" in t he region[155] was dubbed t he Arab Wint er.[156][157][158][159][160]
Various explanat ions have been offered for t he new spread of aut horit arianism. They include t he
downside of globalizat ion, and t he subsequent rise of populism and neo-nat ionalism,[161] and t he
success of t he Beijing Consensus, i.e. t he aut horit arian model of t he People's Republic of
China.[162] In count ries such as t he Unit ed St at es, fact ors blamed for t he growt h of
aut horit arianism include t he financial crisis of 2007–2008 and slower real wage growt h[163] as
well as social media's eliminat ion of so-called "gat ekeepers" of knowledge – t he equivalent of
disint ermediat ion in economics – so t hat a large fract ion of t he populat ion considers t o be
opinion what were once "viewed as verifiable fact s" – including everyt hing from t he danger of
global warming t o t he prevent ing t he spread of disease t hrough vaccinat ion – and considers t o
be fact what are act ually only unproven fringe opinions.[164]
In Unit ed St at es polit ics, t he t erms "ext reme right ", "far-right ", and "ult ra-right " are labels used t o
describe "milit ant forms of insurgent revolut ionary right ideology and separat ist et hnocent ric
nat ionalism",[165] such as Christ ian Ident it y,[165] t he Creat ivit y Movement ,[165] t he Ku Klux Klan,[165]
t he Nat ional Socialist Movement ,[165][166][167] t he Nat ional Alliance,[165] t he Joy of Sat an
Minist ries,[166][167] and t he Order of Nine Angles.[168] These far-right groups share conspiracist
views of power which are overwhelmingly ant i-Semit ic and reject pluralist democracy in favor of
an organic oligarchy t hat would unit e t he perceived homogeneously racial Völkish nat ion.[165][168]
The far-right in t he Unit ed St at es is composed of various Neo-fascist , Neo-Nazi, Whit e
nat ionalist , and Whit e supremacist organizat ions and net works who have been known t o refer t o
an "accelerat ion" of racial conflict t hrough violent means such as assassinat ions, murders,
t errorist at t acks, and societ al collapse, in order t o achieve t he building of a Whit e
et hnost at e.[168]
Examples
There is no one consensus definit ion of aut horit arianism, but several annual measurement s are
at t empt ed, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report . Some count ries such
as Venezuela, among ot hers, t hat are current ly or hist orically recognized as aut horit arian did not
become aut horit arian upon t aking power or fluct uat ed bet ween an aut horit arian, flawed, and
Hybrid regime due t o periods of democrat ic backsliding and/or democrat izat ion. The t ime period
reflect s t heir t ime in power rat her t han t he years t hey were aut horit arian regimes. Nazi Germany
and St alinist Russia are oft en regarded as t he most infamous examples of t ot alit arian syst ems.
Some count ries such as China and various fascist regimes have also been charact erized as
t ot alit arian, wit h some periods being depict ed as more aut horit arian, or t ot alit arian, t han ot hers.
Cont emporary examples of t ot alit arian st at es include t he Syrian Arab Republic and t he
Democrat ic People's Republic of Korea.[169]
Current
The following is a non-exhaust ive list of examples of st at es charact erized as aut horit arian, as
seen in t he sources in t he Not es and references column. Count ries list ed also are not rat ed as
democracies by The Economist Democracy Index, as 'free' by Freedom House's Freedom in t he
World index or reach a high score at V-Dem Democracy Indices.
Time Ruling group
State Notes and references
period or person
Awami League
[179]
Bangladesh 2009- under Sheikh
Hasina
Alexander [180][181][182][183][184]
Belarus 1994–
Lukashenko
[185]
Burundi 2005– CNDD–FDD
Cambodian [186][187]
Cambodia 1979–
People's Part y
[188][189]
Cameroon 1982– Paul Biya
Teodoro Obiang
[199]
Equat orial Guinea 1979– Nguema
Mbasogo
Lao People's
[218]
Laos 1975– Revolut ionary
Part y
[217][219][220]
Morocco 1957– Alaouit e dynast y
[221]
Mozambique 1975– FRELIMO
1979–1990; [223][224]
Nicaragua Daniel Ort ega
2007–
Palest ine
[228]
Palest ine 1964– Liberat ion
Organizat ion
[229]
Qat ar 1971– House of Thani
[230][231][232][233][234][235]
Russia 2000– Vladimir Put in
[236]
Rwanda 2000– Paul Kagame
[237]
Saudi Arabia 1934– House of Saud
Time Ruling group
State Notes and references
period or person
Sudan People's
Liberat ion
[240]
Sout h Sudan 2011– Movement under
Salva Kiir
Mayardit
Republika Srpska
[241][242][243]
(part of Bosnia and 2006– Milorad Dodik
Herzegovina)
Arab Socialist
Ba'at h Part y – Tot alit arian police
Syria 1963– Syria Region st at e [244][245][246] under a
under al-Assad heredit ary dict at orship
family
Royal families of
[253][254]
Unit ed Arab Emirat es 1971– t he Unit ed Arab
Emirat es
Time Ruling group
State Notes and references
period or person
[255]
Uganda 1986– Yoweri Museveni
Uzbekist an
[256][257][258]
Uzbekist an 1989– Liberal
Democrat ic Part y
Unit ed Socialist
[259]
Venezuela 1999– Part y of
Venezuela
Historical
The following is a non-exhaust ive list of examples of st at es which were hist orically aut horit arian.
Time Ruling group or
State Notes and references
period person
Abdelaziz [263]
Algeria 1999–2019
Bout eflika
Milit ary
Brazil St art ed wit h t he 1964
1964–1985 dict at orship in
Brazilian coup d'ét at .[266]
Brazil
race".[268][269]
Government Junt a
St art ed wit h t he 1973
Chile 1973–1990 under August o
Chilean coup d'ét at .[270]
Pinochet
Laurent -Désiré
Democrat ic Republic of Zaire is list ed furt her
1997–2019 Kabila and Joseph
t he Congo below.[271]
Kabila
Croat ian
Croat ia
Democrat ic Union [272][273]
1990–1999
under Franjo
Tuđman
Gamal Abdel
Nasser, Anwar [274]
Egypt 1952–2011
Sadat , and Hosni
Mubarak
Time Ruling group or
State Notes and references
period person
Francisco Macias
Equat orial Guinea 1968–1979
Nguema
Mengist u Haile
Mariam and t he [275]
Et hiopia 1974–1991
Workers' Part y of
Et hiopia
Et hiopian People's
[276]
Et hiopia 1991–2019 Revolut ionary
Democrat ic Front
Commit t ee of
Public Safet y, a
provisional
See also t he French
France 1793–1794 government during
Revolut ion.
t he Reign of Terror
under Maximilien
Robespierre.
Ahmed Sekou
Touré, Lansana Guinea was marked by a
Guinea 1958–2021 Cont é, Moussa series of aut horit arian
Dadis Camara and generat ions.
Alpha Condé
Time Ruling group or
State Notes and references
period person
Arab Socialist
Ba'at h Part y – Iraq
Region under
Iraq 1968–2003
Ahmed Hassan al-
Bakr and Saddam
Hussein
Hirohit o and t he
Imperial Rule
Empire of Japan 1931-1945
Assist ance
Associat ion
Ended in t he Soviet
Lit huania 1926–1940 Ant anas Smet ona
occupat ion.[285]
[286][287]
Macedonia 2006–2016 Nikola Gruevski
Moussa is deposed in t he
1991 Malian coup d'ét at and
Mali 1968–1991 Moussa Traoré
sent enced t o deat h t wice,
exonerat ed in May 2002.
18 June–5
July 1833
27 Oct ober–
December
1833
Time Ruling group or
State Notes and references
period person
1834–1835
20 March–
10 July 1839
1841–1842
14 May–6
Sept ember
1843
4 June–12
Sept ember
1844
21 March–2
April 1847
20 May–15
Sept ember
1847
1853–1855
Democrat ic Part y
of Socialist s of [290][291][292][293][294]
Mont enegro 1990–2023
Mont enegro, under
Milo Đukanović
[295][296]
2016–2022 Rodrigo Dut ert e
Whit e movement
Russian St at e 1918–1920 under Alexander
Kolchak
Gregoire Kayibanda
Rwanda 1961–1994 and Juvenal
Habyarimana
Francisco Franco
Unt il t he Spanish t ransit ion
Francoist Spain 1936–1977 under FET y de las
t o democracy.[302]
JONS
Republican [306][307]
Turkey 1923–1950
People's Part y
Democrat ic Part y
of Turkmenist an Effect ively a t ot alit arian
Turkmenist an 1991–2006
under Saparmurat dict at orship.[251][252]
Niyazov
Ended in t he Orange
1992–2005 Leonid Kuchma
Revolut ion.
Ukraine Part y of Regions
Ended in t he Revolut ion of
2010–2014 under Vikt or
Dignit y.
Yanukovych
Milan St ojadinović
1934–1941
and t he JRZ
Yugoslavia League of
Communist s of See also t he deat h and
1944–1990 Yugoslavia under st at e funeral of Josip Broz
Josip Broz Tit o (– Tit o.[308][309]
1980)
Socialist Part y of
Federal Republic of See also t he overt hrow of
1992–2000 Serbia under
Yugoslavia Slobodan Milošević.[310][311]
Slobodan Milošević
See also
Absolute monarchy
Absolute monarchy
Authoritarian capitalism
Authoritarian socialism
Autocracy
Criticism of democracy
Left-wing dictatorship
Managed democracy
Right-wing dictatorship
Notes
References
Citations
External links
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Authoritarianism&oldid=1226598693"