In the research article, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and Personality: An Analysis Using the IPIP Measure, Heaven & Bucci (2001) examine and investigate the extent to which both right-winged authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are linked to the five major personality dimensions. They affirm that although both RWA and SDO do predict racial and intergroup prejudice, previous research has suggested that RWA and SDO have distinct psychological features.
The authors propose three hypotheses: first, men will score significantly higher than women will on SDO; secondly, RWA will be significantly positively associated with Conscientiousness and Extraversion and significantly negatively associated with Openness to Experience; and thirdly, SDO will be significantly negatively associated with agreeableness.
To test these hypotheses, they ask subjects to complete four self-report inventories; the international Personality Item Pool, Right-wing authoritarianism, Social dominance orientation and the social desirability response set. Five subjects give a result beyond the required limit when tested under the social desirability response set, prompting the researcher to exclude them from his study sample.
Introduction, Aims and Hypotheses
The beginning of this paper, including the introduction, aims, and hypotheses, seems to lack of clear flowing ideas. This is because the researchers have digressed a bit by concentrating on explaining what prejudice is and how to avoid it, and as a result looses grip on the prejudice theme.
For example, the paper starts by presenting the rational for the study, looking at things like in group and out-group prejudices. The authors suggest that there are two predictors however, they drop that, and it suddenly becomes about comparing the two constructs.
Method section, scales
In this section, there is a possibility that the sample is not representative of the whole university population. This is what the writer says under the methods section. This statement, if true, would mean that the study findings would not fully represent the population under study. This would undermine the purpose of the study and the researchers should have used a sample size that could give them the confidence of full population representation.
The adjustment of the sample size also evokes a question: Why reduce the sample size. The reason for reducing number of respondents from 220 to fifteen is unjustifiable since if their response in the social desirability response set was beyond the scale, it is possible that they would give significant response in the other areas of interest if the researcher retained them. The other justifiable option would also have been the replacement of these five with other participants so that the researchers do not affect the sample size.
Results and discussion
Even though the researchers have represented the results in a simple and easy to understand manner, the analysis part of these results is not clear. The researchers do not show the formulae they used in determining quantities such as mean, standard deviation, and value of eta squared. They should have shown how they obtained these values to make interpretation easier. In addition, the results are not fully consistent to the first hypothesis.
This hypothesis states that men will score significantly higher than women will do on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). From table two, the mean and standard deviations for male participants are 32.27 and 11.83 while those of their female counterparts are 28.21 and 9.39 respectively. From these values, it is vivid that the men scores are just slightly higher than those of the females are. Thus, hypothesis is not consistent with the results.
The IPIP inventory does not directly show how to measure five personality domains, named as Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience as the researchers say it should under materials. This is because these traits appear nowhere on the table.
Under discussion, the researchers only analyze Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience, leaving out Neuroticism and Extraversion. This clearly indicates that the analysis of results in this research is shallow. To avoid this, the researcher should have discussed all the domains and relate them well with the IPIP inventory.
Overall summary and conclusion
The analysis of the research article, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Personality: An Analysis Using the IPIP Measure by Heaven and Bucci in 2001 has good organization from the start since the researchers have mentioned well the hypotheses and described the study method.
They have also well represented the results in tables. Despite that, the article seems to have many shortcomings. First, the sample is too small and worse still, the researchers reduced it during the study, and they are not sure whether it is fully representative. The table that represents IPIP inventory does not clearly represent the five personality domains, as it should have.
The analysis of the results also is rather shallow because the researchers do not exhaust all the domains he should have as shown in the IPIP inventory. According to Agnihotri (2001), a good research paper should be clearly written to achieve its objectives without obvious discrepancies (p.29). Therefore, like many similar articles elsewhere, this research article can be an excellent source of information, only if the researchers address the weak areas as this critique points out.
References
Agnihotri, A. Writing a Good Research Paper. Journal of Medical Update, 16, 10-34.
Heaven, P., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and Personality: An Analysis Using the IPIP Measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49-56
The evaluation of particular historical events always depends upon the historians’ perspective and their ideological beliefs. In that regard, any war can be defined as antihuman or patriotic and heroic, depending upon the chosen angle for viewing it.
After Thycydides justified the Peloponnesian War as an epochal event for the whole mankind, similar strategies have been implemented by numerous historians, politicians and ruling elites for supporting their claims and finding apologia for their decisions. At present, labeling terror laws as counterterrorism measures, the United States developed torture expertise aimed at creating an authoritarian-minded populism in the country and utilizing the terrorism industry for achieving their political goals.
Mechanisms of controlling the masses
In the frames of authoritarian-minded populism, the ruling classes of the modern era do everything possible for obscuring communication so that to take the advantages of opacity and limit liberty of population. The mass incarceration, state control, wars and terror are used by the US elites for controlling not only the masses within their country but also spreading their influence on the rest of the globe.
The technological and scientific progress cuts both ways, providing plenty of opportunities that can be used for achieving various goals, including those of controlling masses by means of terror. Ulrich Beck coined the term “risk society” for defining these social shifts in the world community, implying that the products of human activity have become the major sources of hazards as opposed to the past when main risks came from the natural world (Skoll 2010).
Testing of the atomic bombs first in desert near New Mexico and then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and using the premise of noble goals of putting an end to the Word War indicated the beginning of a new era of using the nuclear weapon for threatening the world community and controlling it. Historically, Nazi Germania, Fascist Italia and Stalinist Soviet Union can be used as examples of authoritarian regimes which implemented terror for controlling the masses. The two main tactics are widely used by these states for the purpose of affecting the mass consciousness and achieving their goals.
The first of them presupposes terrifying the masses with the threat of both internal and external enemies for persuading the population that extraordinary power of the state is necessary for minimizing the associated risks. As it was cited in Skoll (2010), Altheide (2002) noted that “this tactic reveals itself as the promotion of the dual fears of crime and terrorism” (Skoll 2010, p. 12). The second tactic implies the use of the available state machinery by expanding the military force with the aim of direct physical control.
Along with expansion of the military force, the obscured communication causing opacity and promoting authoritarian-minded populism are used by the US elites of modern era as one of the most effective instruments for controlling the masses and spreading their influence on the rest of the humanity.
Western model of terrorism
For the purpose of controlling the masses, the US administration makes attempts to incept a patriotic model of terrorism into the public consciousness and promote the hidden authoritarian-minded populism. The basic western model of terrorism includes five main components.
First of all, it represents the West as an innocent victim and a mere target of the terrorist attacks. However, numerous interventions and military conflicts contradict the claims of the US administration that the only their objective is the peaceful settlement of conflicts by means of non-violent measures.
The second component implies that the West only is induced to respond to the use of force by other players. For instance, substituting the term ‘Argentine state policy’ with the word terrorism, the US government managed to justify the mass killings in Argentine between 1976 and 1983 (Herman and O’Sullivan, 1989, p. 38).
The third element contrasts the terrorists to Western peacemaking campaigns, claiming that the first never use the civilized conduct. The fourth element of this patriotic model is the statement that even if the West supports certain insurgents, it is done only on behalf of democracy and with the aim of subduing the repressive regimes.
The fifth element implies that the US democracy is hated by the world terrorist and is one of the main underlying causes for their attacks. Any attempts of expressing the protest and doubting the propriety of the state policies undergo not only government criticism but are immediately suppressed like in the case with Jeff Luers, who was imprisoned for ten years for his attempt to express his protest (Luers, interview).
Thus, it can be stated that distorting the facts, exaggerating the threats and playing on words, the Western model of terrorism can be used as a powerful instrument of promoting the hidden authoritarian-minded populism in the United States by affecting the public consciousness for justifying the implemented methods and reducing the risks of meeting opposition from the masses.
Terror laws
Along with obscured communication and the mass opacity which, however, would be insufficient for justifying the terror as a means of controlling the masses, counterterrorism laws are one of the strategies implemented for promoting the authoritarian-minded populism and controlling the masses.
Implementing the first of the tactics for terrifying the population with internal and external enemies, the United States elites have developed a large counterterrorism establishment. It was in the 1980s when the first anti-terrorism laws were adopted and allowed chasing the terrorists anywhere on earth though the definition of the term terrorist was rather obscure. It is noted that “the word ‘bandit’ was used loosely to designate anybody who stood in our way” (Herman and O’Sullivan, 1989, p. 5).
It means that the legal act allowed chasing enemies after calling them terrorists due to certain reasons. After the events of 9/11 the apparatus of mass terror and its legal basis were expanded by reorganizing the government agencies and creating additional apologia for military invasions.
As opposed to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Syria, which use authoritarian methods and even do not need the appropriate legal basis for using terror, the government of the United States required legal rationale for imposing their repressive measures. Taking into account the proclaimed dominance of democratic principles, it can be stated that the US laws are intended to protect the common population from the state power (Silke 2005).
However, it did not prevent the United States from using terror as an instrument for achieving the state objectives but rather required more sophisticated methods, including those of making the changes in legislation and confusing the masses by means of obscured communication and promotion of authoritarian-minded populism for affecting the mass consciousness for not only implementing terror but also justifying it in the eyes of the nation and the whole world community.
It is stated that “a new government agency took over many internal control functions by absorbing formerly independent agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which became Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)” (Skoll, 2010, p. 13).
The role of these measures in promoting the authoritarian-minded populism and further expansion of the so-called counterterrorist legislation preconditioned the occurrence of the so-called conspiracy theories saying that the 9/11 attacks were planned with the assistance of particular members of the US government for the purpose of strengthening and expanding the terror apparatus (Laqueur, 2004, p. 155).
Though these conspiracy theories are frequently criticized, they emphasize the direct relationship between the 9/11 events and the following expansion of the terror apparatus and the legal rationale for it.
In general, it can be concluded that the US democratic principles induced the elites to find the ways for modifying the legislation for not only persuading the world community in the propriety of their actions but also ensuring proper legal rationale for it.
The terrorism industry
The term terrorism industry is used for describing the mechanisms implemented by both the US government and private sectors for the purpose of strengthening the hidden authoritarian-minded populism and controlling the masses.
The government and private sectors are intersected and interconnected, uniting their efforts for achieving the common goals. The government plays a major role in selecting, implementing and justifying their strategies to the community.
It is significant that since 1980s, a special division aimed at combating the world terrorism has been included into the US State Department. Another significant component of the government terror strategies is the military forces, which are built up specifically for the purpose of dealing with terrorism.
Thus, it can be logically assumed that the government sector has got all the necessary machinery that is required for controlling the masses by terrifying and confusing them. Spreading their influence upon the foreign governments and the intergovernmental organizations, the US elites expand the scope of their activity and try to meet the objective of controlling the rest of the humanity.
The private sector, including think tanks, lobbying organizations and institutes plays an important role in affecting the public consciousness as well.
It is noted that “by the mid- 1980s organizations like the Hoover Institution, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Heritage Foundation each had annual budgets in excess of $ 10 million” (Herman and O’Sullivan, 1989, p. 72). It shows how influential these institutions are and the level of income of the involved sponsors interested in their success.
Operating in the spheres of intellectual activity and national policy implementation, these organizations can affect the public consciousness and perception of the government strategies significantly. It explains the exaggerated fear of another 9/11 attack among the American population (Kassimeris 2008). Complementing each other, both government and private sectors of terrorism industry are successful in affecting the public consciousness for controlling the masses.
Conclusion
In general, it can be concluded that promotion of the hidden authoritarian-minded populism is an effective strategy widely used by the US elites for not only controlling masses but also spreading their influence on an international level. Distorting the facts for affecting the public consciousness, persuading the masses in the propriety of the state terror strategies by incepting the Western terrorism model and providing the appropriate legislative rationale.
Reference List
Skoll, Geoffrey. Social Theory of Fear. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Herman, Edward and Gerry, O’Sullivan. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.
Kassimeris, George (ed.). Playing Politics with Terrorism: A User’s Guide. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
Laqueur, Walter. No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2004.
Luers, Jeff. Environmental Activist Jeff “Free” Luers Speaks Out in First Interview After 9.5 Years Behind Bars. December 23, 2009.
Silke, Andrew (ed.). Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. New York: Frank Cass, 2005.
This paper discusses the concepts of authoritarian state and the importance of bureaucratic context in decision making. This is carried out by outlining the main features of an authoritarian state and using examples in real life to make the discussion relevant and practical. Bureaucracy is defined in details and its significance in decision making is brought out.
Concept of Authoritarian State
Authoritarian states are governed by authoritarian state regimes that suffer from crises of legitimacy and governance. The evolution of authoritarian regimes is caused by situations where legitimacy of other regimes form democracy and is undermined due to the inability of the government to solve various issues that afflict the society.
In some situations, the incapacity of the government of the day can spark crises of confidence in the governing regime hence rendering it vulnerable to insurrections and coups.
The incoming government can turn to be authoritarian in its measures to concentrate power and vest it in a string executive that might be capable of providing solutions to the problems that face the people. Authoritarian state is one that is caused by governance crises within a latent democracy.
Authoritarian states have found it hard to legitimate them because democracy has emerged as a pervasive phenomenon that monopolizes legitimacy throughout the world. Authoritarian regimes are considered to be so after a long period of perceived illegitimacy. Authoritarian state is associated with various forms of leadership like dictatorship, patrimonialism autocracy and dictatorship (Magstadt, 2011).
An authoritarian state appears as such from the perspective of mass-election democracy that looks as liberal from the position of total state program. Authoritarian state has some degree of internal lawlessness.
In this context, the society remains the main agent of development which has transformed to be a strong state that if it could have been in an absolute state, it could have been converted to a democratic parliamentary representation that can be passed into the next stage of state formation of self-organization after coming from old dynastic state authority.
There is a tension between the state and the society that emanate from the constant supremacy of the holders of absolute power that can be based on military or the nobility as well as other administrative apparatus. In a totalitarian state, the society is made up of economic and cultural connections that slowly developed into a state.
In authoritarian states, the regulation and the guarding of truth by the government is very important. Authoritarian regimes in these states utilize ignorance and hopelessness as instruments to control the general public. An example in this context is China that has censored the internet in order to conceal critical information from the public.
In an authoritarian state, the judicial system subscribes to the ideals and practices of the states security apparatus and it is devoid of standards of due process of the law. It is characterized by handpicked judges that are handpicked and hence their degree of autonomy or independence is compromised.
An authoritarian state has some authority that curtails the individual freedoms particularly those of thought and actions. The political system in an authoritarian is mainly concentrated in one leader or a clique of ruling elites. Austria is a perfect case of authoritarian state because the authority of the government is purely in the hands of authoritarian power that serves as both the constitution and institution.
Another classical example is the Austria state which has an authoritarian constitution and where power is legitimized through the maintenance and the developing of an Austria state. Authoritarian rule is eminent in in the legitimization of sovereignty and the rules only work for the institution of the state.
The state and the personal authority of the government are placed squarely in the hands of an authoritarian power. This authority has some sense of anonymity and impersonality.
In an authoritarian state, for example, the ruler of the person in power considers himself/herself the only source of the law and the constitution and through his legitimacy they present themselves as the institution’s representative. The institutions of an authoritarian state are founded on veils that consist of administrative state.
From the above explanation, the following are the common types of authoritarian states: Autocracy; this is the dictatorship form that involves a state that is ruled by one ruler and it may also be a monarchy. There is also an oligarchy; this is a state that is ruled or governed by a military junta and it only has one party state.
Authoritarian state does not rely on instilling fear to the population alone but the people support the government for various reasons. There are also variations in goals and the existence of a powerful state society relationship.
There is also a high concentration and centralization of power where political power is maintained and it is also generated by repressive government authority which eliminates or excludes potential challengers in the political contest.
In an authoritarian state, mass organizations and political parties are used to mobilize people along the goals and the objectives of the government and can only be weakened when it fails to meet the demands of the people (Voegelin & Caringella, 1989).
Importance of Bureaucratic Context in Decision Making
There is no universal definition of bureaucracy. It has been linked to rigidity and inefficient government administrators and it is also associated with delays, red-tapes and wastefulness.
Bureaucracy is defined as the organizations of non-elected government or organization’s officials that are charged with the implementation of laws, rules and the functions of their respective institutions. The main feature of bureaucracy is red tape and officialism.
There is no government or organization that does not function without bureaucracy since it is considered as a machine that is required to run the government of the day. The influence of bureaucrats in decision making and implementation of policy makes it crucial to any political establishment.
Bureaucracies are considered to be organizations or behaving entities that have the ability to Marshall all the legal, material and organizational resources to achieve their missions while socializing with other governmental agencies. Bureaucrats are expected to have the last say in exercising their discretion and meeting the set responsibilities.
There is also the bureaucracy of political behavior which refers to the possibility of officials working together in the public sector and they have their different goals and corresponding behaviors that do not necessarily represent the best policy choices from the perspective of human welfare (Peters, 2001).
In a highly charged and partisan political environment like the American one where there is limited or no consensus between official government actors and the non-actors, bureaucrats are often taken to be non-partisan and are considered as the best to mediate between the existing political battles that can threaten to pull the country apart.
In governments that are characterized by mistrust all decisions made are considered to be political and it is deemed appropriate that it is handled by bureaucrats that is comprised of technical, managerial and non political individuals who can make the best and most neutral decisions.
Bureaucratic contexts are characterized by the negotiation and bargaining between various actors that have different levels of power and varied interests. Bureaucracies in making decisions are influenced by compromises, bargains and the games that are played.
There is a collaborative decisions making process in various organizations that have their own bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is necessary when it is analyzed from the technical perspective. Max Weber considered bureaucracy as the best and the most efficient method of decisions making and it cannot be flexible or inefficient.
Bureaucracies are the main providers of services to the public and other key players in governance. This has led to the increased role of the bureaucrats in the processing of routine cases. The high dependence on the bureaucrats has led to the appreciation of their role in decision making.
Expertise, specialization and knowledge are the strategic ingredient of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies emphasize professionalism and they recruit professionals who are accorded authority because of their professional qualifications. The art of decision making in the bureaucratic context varies considerably and it is highly dependent on matters like the power position, the stages of policy and decision making and the type and nature of the policy scrutinized as well as the level of the policy involved.
The strategic source of bureaucratic is their ability to influence decision making context especially through the timing of decisions and control of information. Bureaucracies control information that is critical and relevant to governance. The bureaucracy has developed as a powerful, ubiquitous and dominant institution in every political system, particularly in administration and decisions making.
Decision making in a bureaucratic context entails the setting of time and schedules and working to realize the decisions within that specified time. Bureaucracies according to Max Weber were believed to enhance efficiency and rationality through the assigning of responsibility to different tasks for different people. Bureaucracies defined the standards and the rules as well as the operating procedures that dictate how task are performed.
Bureaucratic context has been adopted by the USA and it is considered as an administrative state that exists to ensure that there is accountability and to input standard into the quality of decision making though standards of rationality and participatory opportunities.
It becomes hard and difficult for an average or exceptional citizen to disagree or dispute with decisions that are initiated by a technologically experienced, expertise and well insulated bureaucracy. This has converted the government to be an amalgamation of large organizations that make their own decisions.
It has however been established that the domination of the elite and technological experienced people in the decision making of democratic societies is not considered as a problem but no easy solution to it. It is therefore necessary to adopt a system of electronic democracy that can make it possible for the public to contribute to all public decisions or rather to fully take part in decision making (Haritz, 2004).
References
Haritz, A. (2004). Business processes: an archival science approach to collaborative decision making, records, and knowledge management. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Magstadt, T. M. (2011). Understanding politics: ideas, institutions, and issues (9th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge
Voegelin, E., & Caringella, P. (1989). Published Essays 1953-1965: Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.
Recent studies on international relations reveal that the world is troubled with primeval ethnic conflict. This implies that tribal groups lie in wait for one another. Ethnic groups nurture a long-standing revulsion, but they cannot engage in war because powerful authoritarian leaders control them. From this perspective, it is difficult for tribal groups to coexist without the use of force, which can only be implemented by powerful leaders who have absolute authority.
In Eastern Europe, former Yugoslavia serves as an example whereby the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians coexisted yet they belonged to different ethnic groups. The groups lived for several years peacefully, but they rose against each other without a valid reason. This was after the fall of the authoritarian rule, which held them together for a long time. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians share a common language and history, but they differ in terms of other cultural aspects.
They have always viewed each other with suspicion as regards to resource distribution. Ethnicity becomes nationalism when various groups attempt to control major state resources, such as land and power. The Serbs and Croats advocated for their rights by joining other European nations that demanded self-governance.
While Serbs drew examples from the short-lived nation-state, Croats were in advanced stages of developing a nationalist ideology (Geertz 67). Croats believed that their rival regarding resource allocation were the Serbs. Therefore, the best alternative was to eliminate them. This could not materialize given the fact that a powerful authoritarian leader could not allow this to happen.
This paper evaluates the statement that antagonistic ethnic groups can live together for years due to the presence of the authoritarian leader. The article therefore supports the hypothesis that soft authoritarianism is needed to maintain peace and political stability.
Authoritarian Rule in Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia was formed after the First World War following the despicable conflicts that characterized the region. Serbs dominated the state since they owned major businesses. This was never received well by the Croats who felt that their position was under threat, as they owned nothing.
In this regard, the Croats formed a militant organization referred to as Ustashe, which aimed at fighting for the rights of all Croats. The militant organization could not do much before the Second World War because of the presence of an authoritarian leader. Following the collapse of the state during the Second World War, the Croats collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate the Serbs. The Serbs were forced to work in concentration camps together with the Jews while others were expelled from the region.
The Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic declared war on the Croats when he noticed that his people were dying in large numbers. After the Second World War, a strong authoritarian leader took over in Yugoslavia, who controlled occurrence of another massacre until 1990s when the two warring communities rose against each other once more. Marshall Tito ensured that civil groups were not formed in the country since they could easily derail the peace efforts.
Instead, he developed shared political values that were to be observed by both communities. Political opposition was expected to obey certain political values, irrespective of the region. This meant that both the Serbs and the Croats were to abide by the national political principles (Friedman 56). Moreover, the authoritarian ruler ensured that Croats owned land in Serbia while Serbs also owned land in Croatia.
The African Case: Genocide in Rwanda
In Africa, the issue of ethnicity started with colonialism whereby the settlers ensured that each African identifies him or herself with a certain ethnic group. This was to enable easy identification, which was perceived to be a strategy for preventing conflicts with the whites. Belgian administrators supported the Tutsis when they gave them a monopoly regarding state power. Tutsis accumulated power to an extent of making the Hutus the poorest in the country.
Hutus had to wait for an opportunity to revenge because the Belgian administration could not tolerate any conflicts. In this case, it is true that authoritarian rule prevented conflicts in Rwanda. Colonialists noticed that they could govern the African continent by collaborating with certain ethnic groups.
In many cases, they collaborated with groups that embraced Christianity or minorities. Europeans applied force in Africa because they did not have numbers. Authoritarianism was applied successfully to safeguard their rule. Nationalism is closely related to culture and industrialization, something that encouraged many colonialists (Spencer and Wollman 34).
When African leaders took over power, particularly in Rwanda, authoritarianism was applied successfully to keep the Hutus and the Tutsis together. Things changed in 1994 when authoritarian rule was condemned, paving way for openness, which resulted to the genocide (Hintjens 21).
Since authoritarian leaders have absolute control over the state machinery, they will always ensure that peace prevail in society. Such leaders do not give ethnic groups time to reorganize in order kill many people. Individuals would be reluctant to participate in violence once they realize that the consequences would be stern. Groups would be waiting for opportunities to come for them to engage in violent demonstration that usually result to deaths.
It should be understood that strong leadership at the top determines whether ethnic groups rise against each other in any society. The Rwandan (Hutus and Tutsis) and Balkan (Croats, Bosnians and Serbs) cases would be used as example to show that powerful leadership, which is complimented with authoritarian, does not give room to violent conflicts.
In Rwanda, the president started assembling gangs in 1990 in order to wipe out his closest opponents, who were the Hutus and the Tutsis. He formed a militia group referred to as the Interahamwe, which conducted a massacre in 1992. Since the Tutsis were accused of siding with colonialists to deprive the Rwandese of their wealth, all radio stations were ordered to spread hate messages against them. This resulted to systematic killing of the Tutsis and the Hutu moderates.
Main Features of Authoritarian Regimes
As earlier noted in the introduction section, authoritarian leaders are always in opposition of multiparty politics mainly because they fear competitive politics. They do not allow divergent views to infiltrate the electorate because their leadership would be in danger. Such leaders would do everything to ensure that the opposition does not exist in the country.
For instance, they would incorporate other unscrupulous techniques such as political assassination and constant frustration of the opposition. To these leaders, the end will always justify the means implying that their techniques of rule do not matter so much, but what matters is the acquisition of power and its subsequent maintenance (Diamond 117).
Another feature that characterizes authoritarianism is that a group of few individuals control all state organs implying that the idea of checks and balances do not apply. Usually, the president is in charge of everything that should be undertaken in government. Separation of powers plays a critical role in checking the excess of the executive.
Unfortunately, this principle is not observed in an authoritarian regime because the legislature will never challenge the decision of the president, even though it has a mandate of ensuring that the law-making process is smooth.
In extreme cases, the legislature would be used as a rubber stamp meaning that its role is to approve the bills that originates from the executive arm of government. Any politician that opposes the decision of the executive is viewed as an opponent of the state and is often subjected to inhumane treatment whereby security forces would harass him or her frequently.
Authoritarian regimes are also referred to as the single party states because of certain features. One of the features is that the freedom of speech is highly controlled whereby an individual is not allowed to assemble without the permission of the government. This implies that demonstrations, strikes, and picketing are not allowed.
People found demonstrating without obtaining necessary documentation from the state agencies are arrested and would be charged in the court of law (Bremmer 110). The judiciary is always dependent because it observes the instructions issued by one arm of the government, which is usually the executive. In this regard, it is eminent that freedom of assembly is not permitted in an authoritarian regime because an individual cannot hold a meeting without approval from the police.
In other authoritarian regimes, an individual would be expected to obtain a local travelling document, which means that the freedom of movement even within the state borders is highly restricted. The opposition leaders perceived to be a threat to the authoritarian ruler are often denied passports to travel within the state boundaries.
Apart from local restrictions regarding travelling, an individual must also receive approval from the government before travelling abroad. Authoritarian leaders fear the pressure of the west or developed countries meaning that they will always ensure opposition leaders do not meet with foreign donors (Huntington 68).
Regarding the media freedom, the press is only allowed to report matters that are positive whereby information is censored before being reported. Any information perceived to go against the will of the government is always subjected to close scrutiny before being allowed to reach the public.
Corruption, misappropriation of funds, poor governance, neglect of the rule of law, non-observance of the bill of rights, and inequality regarding resource distribution are some of the features that characterize authoritarian regimes. The media must always be guided on what to report concerning the performance of the government. Those that go against the wishes of the government are harshly punished by being detained for long periods without trail.
Others are frustrated to an extent of fleeing the country in fear of assassination. The opposition should never operate within the state borders because its leaders are considered political dissidents who must operate outside the state borders. In the African continent, authoritarian leaders are usually referred to as personal rulers because their major aim is to fulfil individual needs, such as resource accumulation.
It should be noted however that authoritarian rulers differ in their style of leadership because some may possess all the above-mentioned qualities while others might be having just some of the features. Moreover, some might be more oppressive while others might be accommodative meaning that they allow some political competition of opposing views.
Nevertheless, all authoritarian leaders tend to employ similar strategies regarding the control of state. In fact, they all use the state machineries, including the police, the military, the courts, and government ministries to frustrate the opposition. The main aim of all authoritarian leaders is to hold on to power hence they would be willing to use all available methods.
The Need of Dictatorship
In the 1960s, many scholars and even religious leaders called for the establishment of authoritarian regimes because they were efficient in terms of managing the country’s security, as well as realizing the economic and socio-political dreams. The influential Buddhist Rajakeeya Panditha suggested in his works Sinhala that dictatorship would be the perfect form of leadership in some parts of Asia because it would bring sanity and efficiency in matters related to resource management and distribution.
In Sri Lanka, the religious leader commented that authoritarianism would perhaps guarantee prosperity in the country, as well as help the country regain its socio-political and economic glory. Many people supported the view that dictatorship would ensure growth in Sri Lanka mainly because democracy had flopped. Leaders in government welcomed the views of this religious leader because they aimed at clinging on to power for long.
However, the views of many leaders regarding the works of the cleric were misplaced because he gave his own reasons for opposing democracy. Democratic regimes had failed to address the issues that affected the people of Sri Lanka. The cleric questioned why the country was still crippling with human problems that would be avoided, such as poverty, drought, poor representation, and even misappropriation of public funds.
Some studies suggest that authoritarianism brings out the best from an individual, which means that its results are instantaneous. If an individual is deprived his or her right and fear instilled in him or her, an alternative survival means would be sought. This means that an individual will have to work hard to avoid the negative consequences.
If people were informed that a tsunami is approaching, they would scamper for their lives because they understand its dangers. Similarly, people would have to fight for their survival if they are informed that they would be arrested if they do not achieve certain objectives. Under ordinary state of affairs, an individual would not engage him or herself in busy work because there are no repercussions. Therefore, authoritarianism plays a critical role in ensuring that people join hands in realizing certain aims and goals.
Democracy is the worst form of leadership that would force individuals to work together because it relies on people’s consent. One of the major tenets of authoritarianism is that it does not allow people to question the authority, unlike democracy, which allows the populace to be involved in designing major decisions. If development were to be achieved, people should not be allowed to argue over some common facts.
Other scholars are of the view that authoritarianism is the perfect form of leadership as far as resource creation and accumulation is concerned. In order to proper, any give society should create and accumulate wealth. People should not be allowed to spend everything they produce because they would not have anything to invest and use in the future. In the 4th century, an Indian scholar tried to understand the role of authoritarianism by using aphorism.
His examination was that a monster could only be controlled using another giant. Democracy would not promote wealth creation and saving for the future because it allows people to spend their resources without state intervention. Democracy is an illusion that does not achieve anything for the state. In fact, it compromises the interests of the state (Ramsay 168). The use of force would definitely help people in the end because they would have something to spend.
Hitler has always been cited as an example of economic development because he applied authoritarian rule successfully to develop Germany. He ensured that Germany developed from poverty to riches since it was considered an economic powerhouse during the Second World War.
Through his efforts, the country was able to develop some of the mostly admired infrastructural deigns in the world. Hitler utilized forced to mobilize resources, which accelerated economic growth. He transferred resources belonging to Jews to the government, which was utilized effectively to develop the military.
The military would bring glory to the state, unlike the Jews who were self-centred. The regime took over the fixed material goods, such as office blocks and industrial units, which were utilized in developing the country. Germany could not have attained its goals of conquering the world were it not for Hitler’s authoritarian rule. Hitler forced the Jews to work in concentration camps mainly to produce weapons and other valuable products that would be used in developing the country.
After death, the bones of Jews were used in making fertilizers for the German famers meaning that their bodies were not wasted. However, this is the worst example of using authoritarian rule to ensure that state interests are met. This could not have been achieved in a democratic society because people have the right to do as they wish (Kagan 112). Therefore, Germany could not have challenged the existing the international system at the time.
The civil society has always been a menace as far as realization of state interests is concerned. Forced labour camps in China, the Soviet Union, and Kampuchea received criticism from civil groups because such camps were considered slavery. Workers were not paid, but they were provided with adequate basic needs including food and clothing. The proceeds attained through forced labour would be used to develop the country.
The civil groups demanded that all workers be given what belongs to them meaning that they had to be paid suitable salaries. Regarding environmental degradation, civil groups claimed that the government, as well as private investors, had to keep off the forests. Moreover, investors had to use production methods are environmentally friendly.
This would actually derail production because the methods suggested could perhaps be inefficient. In a democratic society, leaders must be willing to accommodate divergent views. In reality, extensive consultations and unnecessary arguments are likely to derail economic development.
Totalitarian rule is well placed to control the affairs of the social groups and disobedient trade unions, which seem to compete with the state for power. In an authoritarian regime, decisions are made faster because the chain of command is always reduced. In fact, bureaucracy and hierarchies have contributed to the failure of many policies and programs, which would have otherwise contributed to economic development.
For development to take place in an urban centre, population must be evicted to pave way for reconstruction. In a democratic society, extensive consultation would be undertaken, which would even discourage potential investors from committing their funds. However, the case would be different in an authoritarian regime because people would be ordered to live within a specified time. Issues of court cases would not surface.
Under a dictator, a city planner would have powers to evict people at will hence paving way for city development. In China, this idea was effectively utilized to develop Shanghai, which is currently one of the most respected cities in the world. Shanghai is the world’s populous industrial city because subsequent authoritarian leaders in China have always ensured that land is available for investment.
In 2008, similar rule was applied in developing Beijing given the fact that it was expected to host the Olympics games. People were relocated to pave way for the extension of the city. China could not have hosted the Olympic Games were it not for the authoritarian rule that ordered forceful eviction of the locals to pave way for expansion of the field. In China, it is always believed that a little bit of authoritarian rule would guarantee prosperity.
Research shows that authoritarian regimes are better placed to implement unpopular reforms as compared to democratic regimes. This is because the central authority has monopoly over decision making and implementation process. This is compared to the democratic regimes, which must always seek the views of the majority before implementing any policy. The writings of various political philosophers suggest that authoritarianism is the best system of governance because the central authority has the power to act unilaterally.
Plato observed that democracy is the worst form of governance because it amounts to the tyranny of the multitude given the fact that the majority might sometimes be wrong. The populace is usually appetitive meaning that they only support something that seems to be pleasant yet they do not understand its tenets. Plato suggested that a good leadership is the one that is based on a certain system, such as an education system.
The leader should be knowledgeable for him or her to make effective decisions. Therefore, it is justifiable for a leader to exercise full authority without consultation if only he or she is knowledge. In the modern society, authoritarian leaders are in a position to resolve the many issues that affect both the state and non-state actors. For instance, an authoritarian leader would be in a position to deal with issues related to the environment, such as climatic change and resource deterioration.
In China, the policy suggesting that an individual should have only one child has been successful as compared to the similar policy being applied in India. Similarly, China refused to give in to the demands of the west regarding the sale of opium due to nationalism (Maalouf 78).
Authoritarianism has played a major role in ensuring that the governmental program on population management is effective. Similarly, antagonistic communities in various parts of the world have been able to coexist peacefully mainly because of the authoritarian rule. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and the Hutu communities fought each other in 1994 because there was a power vacuum in the state. The communities could not rise against each other because of the presence of the authoritarian authority.
Works Cited
Bremmer, Ian. The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006. Print.
Friedman, Andrew. “Kagame’s Rwanda: Can an Authoritarian Development Model be squared with Democracy and Human Rights”. Oregon Review of International Law, 253.2 (2012): 113-212.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. Print.
Hintjens, Helen. Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. Journal of Modern African Studies, 37.2 (1999): 241-286.
Huntington, Samuel. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Kagan, Robert. The Return of History and the End of Dreams. New York: Vintage, 2009. Print.
Maalouf, Amin. In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong. New York: Arcade Pub, 2000. Print.
Authoritarianism in Egypt has been witnessed through the state control of resources which are crucial in decision making and economic emancipation. This is left in the hands of few elites with little regard of the ideologies they hold leading to poverty and corrupt politics.
Authoritarian rule in Egypt has nurtured a perception that a small number of experts is capable of using a central approach in carrying out economic planning and making correct choices on behalf of an entire country’s population (Egypt, 2006). According to the authoritarian leaders of Egypt, central control is important in ensuring equal distribution of economic resources.
However, the authoritarian rule benefits the political class since they are capable of evading poverty associated with the system. They have the ability to secure favor from the government for their own gains. This has greatly contributed towards the revolution and uprising that has been witnessed in Egypt (Egypt, 2006).
Mubarak and his authoritarian government have come up with many strategies to suppress Egyptians. For instance, social welfare organizations have been barred from offering service to the citizens who have been adversely affected by poverty and political marginalization.
Among the repressive laws constituted is the emergency law which makes the 1971 constitution useless. Authoritarian rule has also been accused of imprisoning politicians and making use of military courts in convicting civilians .
Conclusion
Although the type of rule in Egypt is not explicit military dictatorship, it could be termed as an authoritarian system backed by the military. Mubarak has served as an air force officer in the past thus he has full backing of the military and other security organs.
He is always assured of the support of these organs whenever he requires them. Such support is used by the government in the wrong way to continue ruling the country in an authoritarian manner.
Reference
Egypt. (2006). In S. Tatic & C. Walker (Eds.), Countries at the Crossroads: A Survey of Democratic Governance. Plymouth, UK: Freedom House. Web.
Considering the outcome of the Cold War, it is interesting to see that the Arab world still lacks democracy. This becomes especially evident when assessing the global impact on worldwide values and institutions that can be attributed to the winners (Anderson 77). The problem, in this case, consists in the fact that historians and social scientists tend to interpret the events in terms of what might have been instead of analyzing the events that actually took place. For the majority of historians, democracy is still an exception, and they prefer to favor it to other aspects of political culture and certain pivotal events (Anderson 77).
Another problem with political culture consists in the fact that many Arab countries have failed to embrace the perversity and have ended up triggering ignorance in most of their citizens. One factor that should be widely criticized is the desire researchers have to explain the inability to install a democratic apparatus by means of citizens’ wrongful behavior (Anderson 77). Another issue relates to the differing attitudes toward democracy, as well as its implementation. This relates to a number of objective conditions that must necessarily be in line with the economic condition of a country, along with the presence of international support (Anderson 78).
The majority of social researchers consider Middle Eastern countries to be democratically challenged, but this supposition is generally not supported by an extensive body of evidence. The phenomenon of this biased and preconceived notion can be explained by the nonstop search for democracy that goes on in Middle Eastern countries (Anderson 78). Overall, the key concepts of Arab political culture must be considered underdeveloped, and more research in this area is needed.
To expand on this topic, one of the factors that define the nation-state relationship is a people’s attitude toward their leader (in this case, Assad is a perfect example). This particular relationship between the leader and the public is expressed by the compliance of the latter. The community tends to be obedient, and the Syrian people see nothing wrong in glorifying Assad because, for them, he is the definition of the state (Wedeen 512).
Regardless, in addressing this issue, it will become evident that Assad’s virtues are being praised by the Syrian people because of the ideas that the leader puts in their heads. These concepts seriously impact the way people talk, use their imagination, and formulate any statements regarding the country and its leader. Therefore, the verbal practices promoted by the regime lead to a kind of propaganda that is intended to gain as many followers as possible (Wedeen 514).
The authority of the Syrian regime consists of the fact that the governmental apparatus sustains deceit in order to make the community obedient and leaves the Syrian people no choice when it comes to speaking or acting. If we address the issue objectively, it becomes obvious that Assad is so commanding, in fact, because the Syrians themselves make him so. According to numerous reviews of the regime, Assad is not a charismatic leader who possesses certain paranormal supremacy, but he still manages to make the Syrian people obedient, simply by imposing his deceptions on them (Wedeen 514). It is interesting how this quality of Assad makes people follow him obediently and servilely.
Institutional and Politicoeconomic Explanations
The intrinsic part of the democratically challenged regimes in Middle Eastern countries consists in the fact that these states are influenced by their authoritarian governance. Despite popular opinion, it is not the absence of the fundamental principles of democracy that interferes with the implementation of a democratic social organization. On a larger scale, the problem is generated by the stubbornness of a political apparatus that is too authoritarian to let democracy slip in (Bellin 152).
This stubbornness is uniquely reflected in a variety of Middle Eastern countries. To say the least, an ample and intimidating authority is present in the region, and that is one of the key contributors to the existing political regime. Even after the Cold War, authoritarian regimes in Middle Eastern countries were supported by local communities and were found to comply with Western apprehensions about security. The most important factor, among others, is the persuasive and inevitable presence of patrimonialism (Bellin 152).
If we perceive these factors as a whole, it will become obvious that any sort of democratic reform is not possible due to the reinforcement of a strong-armed political apparatus. The majority of Middle Eastern states are paying close attention to the significance of organizational reforms. The ability of these states to convert to democracy is still limited by their exposure to the authoritarian outlook of the ruling classes.
Nonetheless, this is an important lesson for Middle Eastern countries because the implementation of democracy is blocked by the patrimonial organization of their governments. It is safe to say that an authoritarian state is bound to endure in such circumstances. The problem consists in the fact that all democratic initiatives are easily overturned by the will and power of the elites in a regime (Bellin 152). It is not likely that a democratic regime will be installed in any of the Middle Eastern countries at any time soon, and international investments are one of the key reasons.
Regardless, the situation is not hopeless as there are certain changes that may trigger the implementation of democracy in the region. First, the development of a unified democratic institution may become a successful organizational model. In the case of Lebanon, this would be difficult because this country suffers from a critical fragmentation of authority, and its political factions are somewhat complex (Diamond 102).
In addition, it is hard not to mention that the Syrian government is affecting Lebanese politics to a serious degree. Moreover, the perceptions of the region could change if US forces were to be extracted from Iraq. In perspective, this would help the government to elect democratic authorities and stabilize the climate in the region. The situation in Egypt is also complicated due to Mubarak’s legacy, making it unclear what will happen with the regime in the future. It is evident, though, that his inflexible authority leftovers will have to be adapted to a new political scheme. The second transformation implies that US engagement in Middle Eastern political dealings should be reduced as much as possible (Diamond 102). This means that the majority of the states in the region should aim to implement democratic reforms.
The positive impact on governmental transparency will be immediately noticeable, and society will become more civil. The problem is that these positive changes are not being implemented gradually, and this puts serious pressure on domestic political forces, which may ultimately become discouraged and confused. One of the main obstacles on the path to democracy is the homogenous attitude of the United States toward Islamic political factions, as well as the inability to expose them to the benefits of the democratic regime.
The question is whether Middle Eastern countries are eager to reduce oil prices in order to find new options for political bargaining. While such countries as Iraq will not be put under pressure, Iran and Algeria will be hit by problems related to Arab minorities and Arab democratic outlooks (Diamond 102). The withdrawal of the Islamist regime will become a key supporting factor in a democratic transition, but one should take into consideration the exceptional nature of Middle Eastern politics.
The Role of Civil Society and the Public Sphere
The process of state formation and privileges of social organization are two of the core arguments for the future transformation of the existing political regime. The Arab working class is not static, and this is highlighted by the fact that even after the events of 1980, the regimes in Kuwait and Syria remained reluctant at the social base despite the development of the society-state relationship (Moore and Salloukh 71).
Currently, the middle class has been expanded by several new groups that do not belong to either the opposition or the government’s social base. It is interesting to observe how Sunni and Shia are entering the areas (in the Gulf states) that have been commonly held in reserve for the representatives of the regime. The line between the outcasts and social bases of the regime is gradually becoming blurred, and this is leading to certain complications.
Logically, the factors that previously subsidized the development of the private sector and relationships between businesses and the government became the reason why the regime is being transformed (Moore and Salloukh 71). The question is whether these new groups will be “accepted” by the professional associations located in the Middle East. The political future of these new societal clusters is also questionable because the government tends to consciously manipulate the principles of autonomy and liberty.
Another point is that authoritarianism is commonly perceived as speculation that transpired due to the consequences of the crisis. The ultimate outcomes hint at the fact that any change in the state is possible only on the basis of negotiated agreements. In other words, the standards and prospects of the parties involved in political dealings will not be exposed to the adverse consequences of inaccuracies and misperceptions (Moore and Salloukh 71).
As an example, we may use the situation in Kuwait, where the crisis that followed the succession of the emir was resolved in a timely manner owing to fruitful society-government relations and their positive collaboration. The makings of a diplomatic government are expected to help factions to resolve their arguments in a form of negotiations that are coordinated by society-government relations. It may also happen that the opposition will become dominant. In this case, the shift will be hurried and accentuated—and this would not be a good outcome by any measure (Moore and Salloukh 71).
While the members of the opposition have the opportunity to be demobilized and locked within constricted political environments, the future of democratic governments in the Middle East will be doomed due to the increased possibility of mistakes and misunderstandings. Even though the regimes are different, they are all subject to confusion linked to political parties and their opposition.
The Role of External Actors and Transnational Networks
When it comes to the influence of external actors, one of the major roles is given to the United States. Numerous authors believe that American policy should be revised to provide the Iraqi government with more freedom and eradicate authoritarianism (Blecher).
One of the claims regarding this issue revolves around the idea that even though the US government does not put any trust in democracy in the territory of Iraq, other Middle Eastern countries will be interested in implementing democratic principles if the Iraqi government does exactly that. History may repeat itself, but the United States tends to limit the possibility of choosing between regimes because the choice is not a reliable transformation mechanism. The most evident example is what happened in Iran in 1953 (Blecher).
The problem of choice, at the same time, is used to conceal the intentions of the United States, and the latter is not afraid to use military forces to impose US perspectives on the Iraqi government. While the outlook is optimistic, the discussions regarding democracy and its subsequent implementation remain vague (Blecher). It is safe to say that the process of democratizing Iraq will not be smooth. The administration of the United States is careful, though, because if Iraq chooses to become a democratic state, the interests of the United States will be disregarded. The traces of European democracy were not a positive asset for Iraq, either. The problem is that the Middle Eastern neighbors of Iraq have become US allies.
The majority of the conservative public, nonetheless, has made the right choice and joined forces with the United States. Their position is mainly reflected by the claims that almost all Middle Eastern countries do not realize the importance of the United States in the international arena and do not respect the US attempts to stabilize the climate in the region. One of the most evident signs of external influence is the fact the Middle Eastern researchers were repeatedly accused of “groupthinking.” The problem, actually, consists in the fact that it was Middle Eastern governments that pointed out the group-think inherent in Washington.
The reconstruction of the Iraqi government by means of Japanese or German political models is also questionable because the European democratic vision is not significantly influenced by the United States (Blecher). The willingness to improve the government in accordance with an American outlook is not on the Iraqi books, but it is evident that US military forces do significantly impact the balance of power. The problem of democracy in Iraq does not have a resolution yet, but the local adepts of democracy are still hoping for the best. The events of September 11 motivated the United States to return to world domination with new forces.
On a larger scale, no one tried to stop them because of global hesitation. This event turned the tables and destabilized relations between Middle Eastern countries and the rest of the world. The potential of becoming a group of democratic governments was almost wasted because of Hussein’s stubbornness (Blecher). We cannot remove the United States from the equation because one of the objectives of the American government has been to subjugate the country and remake it to their liking. This has not been the first time that the United States has introduced military forces to take over a foreign government. The problem of external influence endures, and there is an inconsequential chance of removing authoritarianism from the Middle Eastern political institutions.
Works Cited
Anderson, Lisa. “Democracy in the Arab World: A Critique of the Political Culture Approach.” Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World: Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Brynen et al., Rienner, 1995, pp. 77-92.
Bellin, Eva. “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics, vol. 36, no. 2, 2004, pp. 139–157. Web.
Blecher, Robert. “’Free People Will Set the Course of History’: Intellectuals, Democracy and American Empire.” Middle East Report Online. 2003. Web.
Diamond, Larry. “Why Are There No Arab Democracies?” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 1, 2009, pp. 93–112. Web.
Moore, Pete, and Bassel F. Salloukh. “Struggles under Authoritarianism: Regimes, States, and Professional Associations in the Arab World.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 39, no. 2007, pp. 53–76. Web.
Wedeen, Lisa. “Acting “As If”: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 40, no. 1998, pp. 503–523. Web.
Authoritarian regimes have succeeded in Egypt for a long time, despite the evident atrocities they perpetrate against their subjects. No meaningful resistance has been put up against them. Authoritarian regimes all over the world are known for their afflictive tactics and repression of the public to prevent opposition. Different scholars have suggested reasons why Egypt has sustained authoritarian regimes, regardless of the apparent subjugation and torture.
In 2013, the public protested against Mohamed Morsi, the new Egyptian leader who had been elected through the Muslim Brotherhood ticket. The election had been regarded as free and fair. Nevertheless, as the protests ensued, the military stepped in, arrested, and imprisoned President Morsi. The military went ahead to arrest and/or imprison thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood supporters. This incident led most people to believe that the military was the real power broker in Egypt. Indeed, authoritarian leaders in Egypt must appease the military for them to be recognized as legitimate, hence securing a reason to remain in power.
Scholars such as Brownlee assert that authoritarian regimes in Egypt have lasted because of the historical culture of repression in the country (470). Historically, successful practices often get reproduced and incorporated into new conditions. This situation has been witnessed in the Egyptian authoritarian regimes. Because early dictators such as Gamal Nasser were able to attain success as authoritarians, this case motivated later rulers to follow the same path (Gause 85). Kamrava reveals how the choices and bargains that were made during Nasser’s regime from 1952 laid ground for future authoritarianism and the emergence of the military as the central institution in the country (252).
Dictators create and dismantle institutions depending on how they perceive their usefulness or threat to their remaining in power (Bellin 130). This situation has caused the military to be empowered because authoritarian leaders see it as being capable of protecting them against opposition. In 1952, Nasser used the military to ascend to power through a coup. Subsequent presidents, including Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, have only followed in the framework laid down by Nasser. They used the military to control and repress the public.
Authoritarian rule in Egypt has thrived because of the lack of the willingness to initiate democratic reforms. According to Kamrava, political liberalization in Egypt is almost invariably associated with colonial domination, as opposed to self-determination (255). This situation has effectively blocked out any democratic ideas from taking shape in the country. Instead, a robust military institution is in place to guard the patrimonial leadership that is increasingly becoming unpopular. The military serves to inhibit any meaningful rebellion against authoritarian rule in Egypt. Perkins maintains that the history of military control in Egypt and the Middle East, in general, is a determining force regarding the kind of eldership in these countries (7). With time, people have become accustomed to this form of leadership where coerciveness is normalized (Perkins 10). It makes sense that citizens are not interested in seeking greater political participation when their own security is indeed not guaranteed. The repetitive conflicts dubbed “revolutions” that have taken place since 1952 have left citizens demobilized and the leaders even more unwilling to share power (Gause 82).
President Nasser laid down the framework for authoritarian rule in Egypt by using and empowering the military to back his ascension to power. Subsequent presidents, for instance, Sadat and Mubarak, followed Nasser’s example. As a result, they were known to use the military to repress the public. This focus on the military has legitimized the institution as the power broker in Egypt. In 2013, the military was able to conquer and incarcerate President Morsi, despite the fact that he had been elected through a free and fair process.
Economic Explanation Mechanism
The majority of the people in Egypt are poor and economically disenfranchised. This situation makes them easy to control and oppress. To most people, the military body serves to empower people economically through creating jobs and stabilizing the country’s economy. In the same light, it would be difficult for the people to protest against the armed forces when they (people) are struggling to survive (Engle 467).
Egypt has one of the largest gaps between the rich and the poor. Most of the people are poor and barely educated (Perkins 4). This state of affairs facilitates oppression by the elites through the military. Mubarak is largely blamed for this inequality. Within a few years of Mubarak’s leadership, the inequality gap had widened to the extent that about 2000 families were earning over £E35000 annually compared to another 4 million who earned less than £E200 annually (Kamrava 255). This inequality has continued to date where it is capitalized on by the leadership to oppress the public. Many youths are left with no choice other than working for the military to earn a living for themselves and their families. Because the military provides a livelihood to many Egyptians, it is viewed as a legitimate institution. This way, most of the people overlook the atrocities perpetrated by the military. For instance, the current president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, has used the military to oppress and kill thousands of people who are opposed to his administration (Perkins 8).
Another aspect of the economic explanation mechanism is that Egypt’s authoritarian leaders have been able to pursue economic policies that are seen as progressive. President Sadat signed an economic deal with Israel. The deal was able to promote the country’s economic advancement. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty meant that Egypt and Israel could trade more freely (Gause 82). In 2004, under President Mubarak’s regime, Egypt signed a deal that would increase its trade with Israel to $100 million. Morsi and al-Sisi have continued this economic relationship with Israel, despite the historical tensions between these two countries. Scholars such as Bellin argue that the authoritarian regimes of Egypt command the economy and use it to control the public (132). In Egypt, the majority of the jobs are in the public sector. This situation undermines the possibility of building autonomous institutions that can challenge the government.
Egypt’s military controls a vast portion of the country’s wealth. This wealth is used to obtain legitimacy from the people who may receive employment as service people in the military.
Coercive Explanation Mechanism
It is no doubt that authoritarian regimes rely on the oppression of dissidents to remain in power. In Egypt, state repression has been a characteristic of the country’s leadership style. When President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011 following his oppressive rule, the subsequent presidents showed no particular interest in getting rid of state repression. In fact, Hossam Bahgat, a renowned journalist in Egypt, believes that repression under President Al-Sisi has become worse compared to the situation during President Mubarak’s administration (Perkins 8).
Repression in Egypt takes different forms that range from a crackdown on media outlets to outright torture of dissidents. Repression is the practice of systematically instilling fear in people to prevent them from attempting rebellion (Bellin 130). Authoritarian rulers in Egypt have authorized imprisonment, including forced disappearance and extrajudicial killings of dissidents and protesters. The result of this case has been the fear that prevents people from engaging in further opposition. The current Egyptian government under Al-Sisi has conducted raiding in people’s homes and even installed surveillance infrastructure to monitor the activities of suspected dissidents (Gause 84). The government is also using preachers to teach against demonstrations. It has declared them (demonstrations) evil. The Al-Sisi regime conducts repression in a more unrestricted manner relative to what was being witnessed during President Mubarak’s government. As a result, more deaths and forced disappearances have been witnessed during Al-Sisi’s leadership. Scholars such as Bahgat reveal how the increased oppression has been caused by the inclusion of many military people in the top leadership (5).
Al-Sisi’s regime has eliminated the checks that were available to ensure that repression did not get out of hand. The checks included the Muslim Brotherhood and the National Democratic Party (NDP). The absence of checks means that the government can oppress the public with impunity (Bahgat 12). For the first time in Egypt, sexual violence has been used as a tool of repression, a case that was not witnessed in the previous regimes. It appears that state repression is becoming normalized. The 2015 anti-terrorism law may lead to the mass execution of peaceful protesters fighting for human rights in the country (Bahgat 15). Under the new law, news reporting, which is perceived to be in contradiction with government interests has been declared illegal. Hence, more journalists will be found in contravention of the anti-terrorism law, thus attracting detention and possible imprisonment. A growing tendency of the military to accumulate wealth has been observed in the recent times. This wealth has been acquired as kickbacks from the government.
Egypt’s leadership has had a history of using coercion to silence the opposition. This trend has been on the rise since the ascension to power of the military-backed Al-Sisi. The public has remained silent for fear of being declared terrorists. The new law passed in 2015 presents any form of protests and media activism against Sisi’s government as terrorism.
The Rabaa Square Massacre
The Rabaa Massacre happened on 14thAugust 2014. Protesters had been camping at the Rabaa al-Adawiya square to demonstrate against the removal of democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi by the military. The efforts to clear the demonstrators were brutal. They resulted in the death of 817 protesters. The military was reported to have used excessive force to remove these protesters. Human Rights Watch declared this massacre one of the worst to be committed in the recent times. In addition to the massacre, over 40, 000 protesters were arrested and put in prison. This mass execution marked the largest number of arrests in the country’s history. Morsi was also arrested and imprisoned. Military-backed Al-Sisi took his position. Al-Sisi’s ascension to the presidency marked a new wave of extrajudicial killings, imprisonment, and executions. Despite protests from the media and the international community, these atrocities continued into 2015.
Morsi’s government did not apologize for the killings. Instead, Morsi declared the demonstrators terrorists. The outlawing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leftist party that had helped Morsi to ascend to power, followed this declaration. Powerful positions previously held by the Muslim Brotherhood were filled with military officials who are close allies of President Al-Sisi. Before the military took over the government, there had been massive protests by people who felt that Morsi’s regime had failed them. Scholars such as Bahgat believe that this frustration had resulted from over expectations occasioned by the wave of the Arab spring (3). At the time of these protests, Egypt had been divided into two camps: those who were anti-Morsi and those who wished for him to remain in power. The pro-Morsi protesters faced the wrath of the military. The military intervention was pegged on the argument that it was in the interest of the public that wished for an end to the Morsi regime. The latter group that supported the military intervention was bitter that Morsi’s government had failed to deliver its promises.
Nevertheless, some Egyptians still believe that Al-Sisi’s regime is rightfully in power. According to Caridi, many Egyptians are tired of the protracted conflict that has lasted since 2011 (4). Al-Sisi’s regime offers the much-desired stability. For this reason, many citizens are willing to overlook the atrocities committed by the government.
Conclusively, Egypt’s military was able to commit the atrocities at Rabaa Square following the legitimacy that it had assumed over the years. Since previous leaderships have been using the military to quell protests, the forces must have become accustomed to the use of power to silence dissidents. Importantly, Egypt’s military serves as an employer of many citizens. This situation not only gives the military legitimacy but also significantly reduces any possible opposition against it. As a result, many people supported the military instead of protesting the Rabaa Massacre. The fear of being targeted was another reason why not many people protested the massacre. Nevertheless, what the military did at Rabaa was wrong and that the international community should have condemned it strongly. The historical, economic, and coercive explanations are not sufficient to justify the atrocities committed at Rabaa. A legitimate government should not have to oppress its subjects to gain legitimacy.
Works Cited
Bahgat, Gawdat. “Egypt in the Aftermath of the Arab Spring: What Lies Ahead?” ACCORD is Ranked among Top Think Tanks in the World, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-56.
Bellin, Eva. “Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring.” Comparative Politics, vol. 44, no. 2, 2012, pp. 127-149.
Brownlee, Jason. “Unrequited Moderation: Credible Commitments and State Repression in Egypt.” Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 45, no. 4, 2010, pp. 468-489.
Caridi, Paola. “Consensus-building in Al-Sisi’s Egypt.” Insight Egypt, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-8.
Engle, Sally. “The Rule of Law and Authoritarian Rule: Legal Politics in Sudan.” Law & Social Inquiry, vol. 41, no. 2, 2016, pp. 465-470.
Gause, Gregory. “Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring: The Myth of Authoritarian Stability.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 81-90.
Kamrava, Mehran. “Preserving Non-democracies: Leaders and State Institutions in the Middle East.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 46, no. 2, 2010, pp. 251-270.
Perkins, Andrea. Mubarak’s Machine: The Durability of the Authoritarian Regime in Egypt. University of South Florida, 2010.
The world has a fair share of authoritarian regimes. The recent “Arab Spring” witnessed in the Arab countries renewed the conversation regarding the topic of dictatorial rule. Authoritarianism became unpopular in the world after the Second World War, following the collapse of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini’s regimes. Democracy reigned afterward, where leaders would ascend to power through an election. Their stay in power was limited. Nevertheless, various countries have continued to be led by authoritarian leaders, decades into the twenty-first century. Education and the media are the most effective among these mechanisms. Through education and media, the government spreads propaganda and extreme patriotism views with the aim of weakening the dissidents while asserting the need for obedience to the laid down policies.
The question that people often ask themselves is, ‘how do authoritarian regimes get away with violence, torture, and oppression?’ Most of the citizens in countries led by authoritarians often seem to be in agreement with the government of the day. Nationwide protests and rebellion against an authoritarian government are occasionally witnessed in authoritarian governments. This paper examines the effectiveness of the mechanisms mentioned above, namely media and education, in perpetuating extremist patriotism to ‘demonize’ dissidents in favor of the authoritarian rule. These two major tools are used to spread propaganda against those who are opposing the government for them to be viewed as the enemy. In addressing media, this paper will discuss the various forms of media that are available for use by these regimes, namely, newspapers, press, and social media. Education, for its part, involves aspects such as music, national anthems, poetry, and curriculums that teach extreme patriotism. Authoritarian governments use half-truths to weaken nonconformists by demonizing the legitimacy of their (nonconformists) activities, a situation that makes them fail to obtain any meaningful following from the citizenry.
Concepts
This section defines key concepts and terminologies that are relevant to this paper.
State Violence
According to Tambar, state violence refers to the systematic use of aggression by the present government to create fear among its citizenry with the aim of propagating a particular political agenda.1 Aspects of state violence include, but are not limited to, torture, murder, and repression.2
Torture
Dolan presents torture as the act of inflicting pain on people as a form of punishment or with the intention of forcing them to do or refrain from doing something.3 Authoritarian governments are known to employ torture tactics to systematically silence their dissidents.
Repression
Malinowski defines repression as the action of suppressing people using force.4 It may include threats, violence, or simply suppressive policies. Repressive actions by the authoritarian government may include deliberate voter suppression, kidnapping, and the assassination of dissidents. Therefore, repression points to any form of disenfranchisement against the citizens, which is propagated by the state machinery.5
Authoritarian Regimes
An authoritarian regime is a government that controls power by keeping it away from the rule of the majority for people not to have a say in leadership.6
Patriotism
According to Qian, patriotism is loosely defined as the love for one’s country or the feeling of pride associated with belonging to a given country.7
Legitimacy
Legitimacy is the authenticity or lawfulness of something. For a government, legitimacy refers to its acceptance by the people as being rightly in power. Therefore, as Weber observes, legitimacy involves shared beliefs that seek to validate the government based on traditional, charismatic, or legal grounds.8
Propaganda
Propaganda refers to any biased information, which is spread with the intention of misleading the audience about a particular subject or point of view, as Pufleau reveals.9 It is a set of methods utilized by an organized group to bring massive participation of the individuals in their cause by manipulating them psychologically.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on the works of various authors regarding the authoritarian rule. Michel Foucault has written about repression, power, discipline, and punishment.10 Hanna Arendt wrote about evil and repression with the aim of showing how the two elements play out in authoritarian regimes. Max Weber, for his part, discussed legitimacy, including how authoritarian governments enforce it using force.11 Finally, according to Arendt, Antonio Gramsci wrote on the subject of hegemony.12
In his repression hypothesis, Foucault took the view that human beings are freer in relation to the way they believe about their level of liberation.13 Radical politics and psychoanalytic thoughts are used to make people believe that their freedom is curtailed in a way that true freedom can only occur through breaking away from the system. However, this conception of power also prevents people from foreseeing the possibility of radical change in the near future.14 In a sense, the repression hypothesis considers and presents power in a negative version, a strategy that people deploy to oppress others. This perception of power is in line with the manner by which authoritarian rules function.
Regarding power, Foucault took the view that subjects cannot exercise power because they are merely passive objects created by the power, as Ball observes.15 In essence, Foucault was presenting the citizens of a country as powerless before the government. In democracies, while people can have considerable input in the government, the input of the people does not count in authoritarian leadership. Domination results in an asymmetrical relationship where the ‘dominated people’ have a limited planning opportunity because their liberty is greatly restricted to the extent that it becomes difficult to challenge the government. Foucault also described “technologies of government” as tools used by those in power to systemize, even out, and control its power.16 On the subject of discipline and punishment, Foucault wrote that the modern prison was invented not to correct offenders but to propagate the culture of subjection as O’Brien asserts.17 Crime and rebellion are perceived as a declaration of war against the government and hence the use of force to confront those who perpetuate them.18 In its response to crime and rebellion, the autocratic government is interested in identifying and attacking its enemies, rather than enforcing the law.
Hanna Arendt discussed political evil by arguing that authoritarian governments arise from the notion of a novel leadership that is built on fear and ideological fiction.19 According to Arendt, terror is the tool used by illegal administrations to pressurize the citizens to be aware of them (governments).20 The more coercive force a government uses, the more questionable the legitimacy of its power becomes.21 Therefore, Arendt proposed the metric of non-violence to determine the legitimacy of a government. Capitalism has resulted in the concentration of economic power that could be used by the bourgeoisie to suppress the majority with the view of furthering their (bourgeoisie) interests.22 The authoritarian rule works by destroying public participation of people in political affairs. As such, it is anti-politics. The use of force is by itself an admission by the government that it is no longer in control of its people.
Max Weber wrote about legitimacy, arguing that the force keeps any government in power.23 When people perceive the government as legitimate, they are unlikely to revolt. Weber classified legitimacy into three categories, namely, legal power, traditional supremacy, and charismatic superiority. He further identified two basic components of social organizations, which included authority and norms. Norms depend on one’s orientation to a certain principle while authority requires individuals to obey commands.24 Authoritarian rulers depend on the latter (authority) to govern their subjects by using repression when necessary. According to Weber, the ability to use physical force distinguishes political leadership from other forms of leadership.25 Therefore, if the use of force by the government is justified, it does not constitute terror or repression. According to Couto, the government of the day may seek to assert its right to use violence by invoking any one or more of the three forms of authority (traditional, charismatic, or legal).26
As Mouffe observes, Antonio Gramsci for his part discussed hegemony where he described capitalist states as consisting of two spheres that overlap.27 These two spheres are political culture and civil society. For political society, force is used to make people obey commands and laws put in place by those in power.28 On the other hand, the civil society constitutes the public sphere where ideas and beliefs are shaped.29 Gramsci recognized the media, educational institutions, and religious organizations as tools within the society that are used by authoritarian governments to acquire consent and legitimacy from the people.30 Gramsci also believed that a direct revolutionary struggle would most likely fail if it were not preceded by a ‘war of position.’31 War of position refers to a change in ideas and beliefs, which Gramsci viewed as the effective way to create a new hegemony. Therefore, the theory advanced by Gramsci agrees with the common understanding that education and media are often used by the state to further its interests through propaganda.
Literature Review
The Arab uprisings in 2011 led to a manipulation of the media by the affected governments. As a result, the public formed independent media channels to incite the public against the regimes. According to Lynch, these media channels brought together activists while at the same time ensuring that citizens aired their views without government control.32 Authoritarian governments have used the media and the education sector to stamp out their legitimacy. State and non-state groups have relied on traditional and the modern media for decades to get away with torture and repression.
During Saparmurat’s reign as the president of Turkmenistan, he published a book labeled “The Soul Book.” As Meurs observes, the essence was for the public to be used it to paint the government and country in a positive image, both locally and internationally.33 Through its media wing, Al Shabaab has produced movies aimed at stamping its authority in Somalia. The strategy has gained the group praise for being technologically well-informed, thus earning international recognition and ‘legitimacy.’ According to Weimann, some of the radio stations run by Al-Shabaab include Somali Wayen Radio FM, Radio Al-Andalus, and Karim Radio FM among others.34
States are known to launch a terrorist attack to force the civilians into submission.35 After the Mexican revolution, an authoritarian government was formed. In a bid to prove its legitimacy, government-sponsored textbooks were offered to public schools.36 As Dominguez observes, the civilians interpreted this move to mean that the government had good intentions, thus gaining wide appreciation.37 The Venezuelan president, Daniel Lanasberg, implemented measures meant to dissuade independent newspapers from revealing the effects of capitalism.38 This strategy was accomplished by denying them access to favorable currency exchange rates, thus making the printing of papers expensive. In Turkey, the government resorted to using pro-government outlets to get away with repression. According to Ludwig, government contracts were given to the pro-government media outlets.39
The Bahai community in Iran has received great opposition from the government for various reasons. First, the Bahai people are seen to have been supporters of the Shah regime that consisted of opponents of the current administration. Secondly, they are seen as Israel’s’ spies who pose a security risk to Iran. Thirdly, they are accused of perpetuating an Islamic ideology that is not consistent with the Shia Islam. In Iran, the government controls the school curriculum to develop falsehoods, stereotypes, and misconceptions among the public.40
As a result, any information regarding the evils advanced against the Bahai International Community is filled with misinformation and bias.41 Iran runs state-controlled media houses that issue falsehoods about the Bahai community. According to Knight, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatolla Ali Khameni, issued a fatwa that sought to depict the Bahai community as a misleading sect that was perpetrating violence against the government.42 Being a predominantly Islamic state, the government of Iran depicted the Bahais as an ignorant faction that disregarded Islamic beliefs, thus inciting the public to hold demonstrations against the government.43
As Guriev and Treisman argue, dictators often ensure that they feed the media with propaganda meant to convince the public of their competency in leadership.44 They also resort to bribing the few informed individuals. The government also censors all the messages sent by the elite individuals to reduce the chances of having an informed public. The revolutions experienced in the Arab countries have been costly due to the government’s use of police as tools of repression.45 Despite ousting several leaders who exercised authoritarianism, democracy was not achieved. Instead, authoritarianism was restored.46 Through censorship, governments regulate the information relayed to the public. Stockman reveals how China allocates a huge portion of its budget to censor the internet in a bid to avert any possible opposition towards the government.47
During the Fujimori regime in Peru, $36 million was paid to leading media houses to skew the information relayed to the public.48 Journalists who did not adhere to the regulations were prosecuted and later imprisoned for inciting the public. Sometimes, governments lure friendly investors to buy out independent media houses. Thus, the investors become susceptible to control mechanisms.49 During the Arab uprisings, governments bought out media channels that were used by the demonstrators to launch attacks against them. As a result, the media houses that were deemed to help in ousting the governments engaged in partisan politics whereby they served the government.50 As a result, the media contributed not only to mounting pressure on the government but also contributed to the failure of the uprisings.
Citizens may feel oppressed by a regime. However, they may find it difficult to oppose because of media houses relaying information meant to portray the government positively. On the other hand, the leadership will use all means to ensure that media houses continue relaying skewed information for their benefits.51 Because of the concerted efforts between the media houses and the leadership, the public may not discern the truth from mere propaganda. Stockman asserts that governments use censorship and propaganda to prevent the public from mounting opposition against the administration.52
The Ukrainian crisis painted Russia to the international community in bad light. However, the Russians viewed President Putin as a hero. In turn, he won the hearts of many people. After the annexation of Crimea, the Russian government embarked on propaganda as a means of promoting its civilization approaches as Shakhrai reveals.53 In the Arab countries, Ferguson claims that Al Jazeera, which was deemed an advocate for human rights, was soon broadcasting information that supported the interests of state actors.54 Media sectors that were controlled by the state worked hard to ensure that the uprisings did not succeed. Consequently, businessmen who were eyeing political seats started television stations and relayed government-controlled information.
In attempting to illustrate the role played by the media in the Arab uprisings, Lynch asserts that between 1970 and 1980, state-controlled media stations and censorship were methods used by governments to exercise dominance.55 Despite independent media channels such as BBC and VOA, national media remained the broadcasting channels favored by many individuals. Foreign-owned media posed competition to the state-controlled media houses, a situation that resulted in modernization and adaptation.
Students have also accused schools of using dubious means to achieve conformity. According to Strauss, under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, Hall was accused of influencing test scores in the Atlanta Public Schools.56 Through the collaboration with school leaders and teachers, Hall ensured that all students had an indication of academic improvement. Lorenzo Garcia was committed to imprisonment for denying low-performing students the chance to take the state test. This move is an indication that the education system can be susceptible to external influence such as being used to further an authoritarian cause.57
Countering the Argument: Tackling the Authoritarian Regimes Mechanism of Repression
Authoritarian leadership succeeds because the people are comfortable with such a regime. As Weber observed, the legitimacy of any government is derived from the people. According to Svolik, the subjects who view authoritarian regimes as an effective form of government generally accept the way such governments are run.58 Authoritarian leaders succeed in silencing dissidents through repression and propaganda. The result of this move is that the government can get things done without unnecessary opposition. Therefore, this form of leadership is more effective in implementing tasks because there is little opposition. The democratic process is not suitable for projects that need to be dispensed with urgency because of the bureaucratic structures that have been put in place to decentralize power. By forging legitimacy, autocratic leaders create formidable governments that are immune to opposition. This plan is a show of strength on the part of the autocratic leader.
The media is an important component of any leadership, especially an authoritarian rule. Propaganda is imperative to keep the government going in the face of insurmountable opposition. By regulating the kind of information that its citizenry has access to, authoritarian leaders maintain the legitimacy of their power. The dissidents thereby find it difficult to influence the citizens against the authoritarian leadership because they have already been subjected to cultural obedience through propaganda.59 This situation can be seen as a way of ensuring that harmony is achieved in the society by reducing conflict. Weber argues that the government can use force to enforce its legitimacy, as long as it is justified.60
President Saparmurat’s case provides a good example of how poetry can be used to reinforce an authoritarian rule. Saparmurat ruled Turkmenistan between 1990 and 2006 as an authoritarian during which he published the “Soul Book,” a propaganda tool for his government.61 Through the book, Saparmurat was able to conceal the evils of his reign, instead of replacing them with an image of a harmonious and culturally robust nation. Autocratic leaders perfect the art of propaganda since it is a source of legitimacy for their otherwise unpopular governments. In Turkmenistan, President Saparmurat went as far as ensuring that the book became a source of interview questions for those who were seeking government employment.62 It was being taught in schools as part of the curriculum for most of Saparmurat’s regime. The strategy was a case of propagating extreme patriotism to enforce government legitimacy. Authoritarian rulers will “brainwash” their subjects if such methods have to be used for them to remain in power.
Music is another tool used by autocratic leaders to hold on to power. It is an effective way of spreading propaganda because of its ability to appear inoffensive. According to Pufleau, music is regarded as a tool that is made with good intentions.63 Therefore, people are less suspecting of the underlying intention to repress them through extremist ideas. Importantly, just like poetry, music can carry different meanings, depending on the interpretation of the audience. This situation serves the purpose of spreading propaganda in a seemingly harmless manner.64 Autocratic leaders pay colossal amounts of money to musicians to create songs that propagate their cause.
In 2014, Muedini reveals how Algeria’s president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, sponsored a music video that was in support of his authoritarian regime.65 At the time, Algeria was staring at the possibility of a civilian rebellion amid the Arab Spring. Music is also effective because many people can access it. In other words, according to Macías, more people listen to music, as opposed to reading books or watching news channels.66 When General Francisco Franco rose to power as the new autocratic ruler of Spain in the early 1940s, he targeted to use music to legitimize his regime as Johnson reveals.67 According to Avital, Hitler also placed great importance on music to promote his fascist ideology and his government-sponsored musicians.68
Conclusion
Modern dictatorships depend on their ability to effectively utilize propaganda to prevent rebellion. This propaganda is spread through education and the media. Through education, the government spreads ideologies that support extreme patriotism in an effort to legitimize the administration. The media for its part is used to publish information according to how the government wants it to be viewed by the citizens. Repression is also used to ensure that people do not engage in a meaningful rebellion. People condone authoritarian leadership because they do not possess the mechanism to organize an effective rebellion. In addition, through the spread of propaganda, the government is able to create a culture of obedience, which makes the people view the particular administration as legitimate. Therefore, the majority of the people are not willing to join in a concerted effort to remove the regime. The fear of repercussion is another reason why the people do not oppose an authoritarian rule. Authoritarian governments initiate state violence and torture against their enemies to suppress the future opposition.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. Antisemitism: Part One of the Origins of Totalitarianism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.
Avital, Moshe. “The Role of Songs and Music during the Holocaust.” Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy 31, no. 1 (2012): 51-60.
Ball, Stephen. Foucault, Power, and Education. London: Routledge, 2012.
Couto, Richard. “The Politics of Terrorism: Power, Legitimacy, and Violence.” Integral Review 6, no. 1 (2016): 63-64.
Dolan, Chris. Social Torture: The Case of Northern Uganda, 1986-2006. New York: Berghahn Books, 2013.
Dominguez, Jorge. Chapter Twenty. The Perfect Dictatorship? South Korea versus Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Boston: American Political Science Association.
Ferguson, Henry. Partisanship in the Media: A Comprehensive Look at the History and Potential for Bias in News Media. California: Santa Clara University, 2016.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure. New York: Vintage, 2012.
Guriev, Sergei, and Daniel Treisman. How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression. Washington: Center for Economic Policy Research, 2015.
Johnson, Anthony. “Made in Spain: Studies in Popular Music.” IASPM Journal 5, no. 2 (2015): 76-78.
Knight, Nauzanin. State Terrorism in Iran: Understanding the Case of the Iranian Bahá’i Community. London: Routledge, 2014.
Lynch, Marc. “How the Media Trashed the Transitions.” The Arab Uprisings Explained 26, no. 4 (2014), 91-99.
Lynch, Marc. The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East. New York: Public Affairs, 2013.
Macías, Atzimba. “The Music that is Here to Stay: New Rules in State-Society.” Revolutionizing the Interaction between State and Citizens through Digital Communications 1, no. 1 (2014): 145-149.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. Sex and Repression in Savage Society. London: Routledge, 2013.
Meurs, Hendrik. “Staging Legitimacy: Mechanisms for Power Retention in Turkmenistan.” OSCE Yearbook 1, no. 1, (2014): 127-139.
Mouffe, Chantal. Gramsci and Marxist Theory (RLE: Gramsci). London: Routledge, 2014.
Muedini, Fait. “Algeria: Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Sufism, and Authoritarianism.” In Sponsoring Sufism 2015, edited by Fait Muedini, 43-66. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
O’Brien, Patricia. The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in Nineteenth-Century France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Pufleau, Luis. Reflections on Music and Propaganda. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, 2014.
Qian, He. “Anti-Stamp Act Crisis and Early Transforming “Patriotism” in Colonial America.”Journal of Historical Science 9, no. 1, (2015): 12-13.
Shakhrai, Ina. “The Legitimization of Authoritarian Rule through Constructed External Threats: Russian Propaganda during the Ukrainian crisis.” East European Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015), 29-54.
Stockman, Daniela. Media Commercialization and Authoritarian Rule in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Strauss, Valerie. “A Warning to U.S. about ‘Educational Authoritarianism’ — from a Chinese Scholar.”The Washington Post. Web.
Svolik, Milan. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Tambar, Kabir. Brotherhood in Dispossession: State Violence and the Ethics of Expectation in Turkey. California: Stanford University, 2016.
Weber, Max. Politics as a Vocation. London: Routledge, 2013.
Weimann, Gabriel. New Terrorism and New Media. New York: University of New York Press, 2014.
Footnotes
Kabir Tambar, Brotherhood in Dispossession: State Violence and the Ethics of Expectation in Turkey (California: Stanford University, 2016), 31.
Tambar, 33.
Chris Dolan, Social Torture: The Case of Northern Uganda, 1986-2006 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2013), 338.
Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex and Repression in Savage Society (London: Routledge, 2013), 10.
Malinowski, 11.
Dolan, 338.
He Qian, “Anti-Stamp Act Crisis and Early Transforming “Patriotism” in Colonial America,” Journal of Historical Science 9, no. 1, (2015): 13.
Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (London: Routledge, 2013), 12.
Luis, Pufleau, Reflections on Music and Propaganda (Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, 2014), 31.
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure (New York: Vintage, 2012), 37.
Weber, 13.
Hannah Arendt, Antisemitism: Part One of the Origins of Totalitarianism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012), 12.
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure (New York: Vintage, 2012), 31.
Foucault, 33.
Stephen Ball, Foucault, Power, and Education (London: Routledge, 2012), 27.
Ball, 28.
Patricia O’Brien, The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in Nineteenth-Century France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 16.
O’Brien, 17.
Arendt, 12.
Arendt, 11.
Arendt, 13.
Arendt, 12.
Weber, 11.
Weber, 12.
Weber, 13.
Richard Couto, “The Politics of Terrorism: Power, Legitimacy, and Violence,” Integral Review 6, no. 1 (2016): 63.
Chantal Mouffe, Gramsci and Marxist Theory (RLE: Gramsci) (London: Routledge, 2014), 8.
Mouffe, 9.
Mouffe, 8.
Mouffe, 10.
Mouffe, 11.
Marc Lynch, “How the Media Trashed the Transitions,” The Arab Uprisings Explained 26, no. 4 (2014), 94.
Hendrik Meurs, “Staging Legitimacy: Mechanisms for Power Retention in Turkmenistan,” OSCE Yearbook 1, no. 1, (2014): 128.
Gabriel Weimann, New Terrorism and New Media (New York: University of New York Press, 2014), 21.
Lynch, 95.
Lynch, 96.
Jorge Dominguez, Chapter Twenty. The Perfect Dictatorship? South Korea versus Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico (Boston: American Political Science Association), 15.
Dominguez, 19.
Jessica Ludwig, “Beyond Propaganda: How Authoritarians Disrupt the Global Information Space,” Resurgent Dictatorship. Web.
Ludwig, para. 2.
Ludwig, para. 5.
Nauzanin Knight, State Terrorism in Iran: Understanding the Case of the Iranian Bahá’i Community (London: Routledge, 2014), 20.
Knight, 20.
Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression (Washington: Center for Economic Policy Research, 2015), 25.
Guriev and Treisman, 23.
Guriev and Treisman, 26.
Daniela Stockman, Media Commercialization and Authoritarian Rule in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 14.
Dominguez, 19.
Guriev and Treisman, 30.
Stockman, 16.
Guriev and Treisman, 32.
Stockman, 16.
Ina Shakhrai, “The Legitimization of Authoritarian Rule through Constructed External Threats: Russian Propaganda during the Ukrainian crisis,” East European Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015), 30.
Henry Ferguson, Partisanship in the Media: A Comprehensive Look at the History and Potential for Bias in News Media (California: Santa Clara University, 2016), 16.
Marc Lynch, The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East (New York: Public Affairs, 2013), 14.
Valerie Strauss, “A Warning to U.S. about ‘Educational Authoritarianism’ — from a Chinese Scholar,” The Washington Post, Web.
Strauss, para. 4.
Milan Svolik, The Politics of Authoritarian Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 23.
Svolik, 22.
Couto, 63.
Meurs, 128.
Meurs, 129.
Pufleau, 32.
Pufleau, 32.
Fait Muedini, “Algeria: Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Sufism, and Authoritarianism,” in Sponsoring Sufism 2015, ed. Fait Muedini (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 46.
Atzimba Macías, “The Music that is Here to Stay: New Rules in State-Society,” Revolutionizing the Interaction between State and Citizens through Digital Communications 1, no. 1 (2014): 146.
Anthony Johnson, “Made in Spain: Studies in Popular Music,” IASPM Journal 5, no. 2 (2015): 76.
Moshe Avital, “The Role of Songs and Music during the Holocaust,” Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy 31, no. 1 (2012): 53.
The augmenting importance in sobering the national and international governance has increasingly become a contemporary issue that has consumed the global political realm, with studies focusing on national civilisation and democratic development processes.
For several decades, the world has undergone a transition within the political paradigm with human beings coming to the realisation of their political freedom and rights that remained undermined from the traditional political regimes.
Literature confined to international political principles has evolved and managed to identify systems of governance employed in the modern national governance with distinct characteristics, their divine strengths, and explicit weaknesses, thus enabling citizens to classify their political bosses.
Each of the systems of governance has proven equally imperative in managing human resource, based on certain conditions or structure entrenched in organisations.
Despite comprehensive literature existing in systems of national governance, much remains unknown. Authoritarian political systems have distinct characteristics and like other systems, they have strengths as well as weaknesses.
China and authoritarian rule
Authoritarianism is a concept that is traditional to many countries with a majority of them having it at a given period in their history. As opposed to libertarianism and individualism, authoritarianism is a form of leadership where the subjects submit to authority constituting of a handful of people exercising the authority.1
One of the states that have long preserved its authoritarian rule is the People’s Republic of China, with the Communist Party here exercising the authoritarian rule. Policies in this country are created without consulting the public, and this aspect makes China a modern day authoritarian state.
With this form of a political system, China has experienced the negative and positive effects of the same with the most remarkable one being the maintained economic boom. The freedom of the citizens remains a major challenge in the country and this element constitutes the biggest problem for them.
For the Communist Party in China, the moral and ideological standings hit an all-time low in 1989, “in the wake of the crackdown on prodemocracy protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square”2.
As is common with authoritarian rule, complaints of corruption in the system were the major contributing factor to the social outcry with some people even claiming that the elite enjoyed special privileges at the expense of the ordinary people who struggled to earn a living.3
The suppression associated with the system even led to the murder of some protesters by the so called “people’s army” in the same square, and this move demonstrated the ease with which the government could kill its own people4.
Aside from the negative associations at the time, the agricultural economy was a major beneficiary of the system. However, this aspect was overshadowed by the notion that the “urban economy still seemed locked within the iron framework of a work-unit system that was both inefficient and corrupt”5.
Therefore, it is important to consider the origin of authoritarian rule in the country, and the contemporary negative and positive effects.
Historical Perspective
The People’s Republic of China was established in the late 1949 under the leadership of the Communist Party supported by the then USSR after the defeat and retreat of the Kuomintang which had the support of the west.6 Mao Zedong established the communist rule in the country, with Beijing as the capital.
As Cheng claims, the leadership went through difficulties in the 60s and 70s, which was largely seen as ideological breakdown.7 Consequently, Mao instituted a series of changes and these evolved to what was popularly known as the Cultural Revolution in China or Maoism elsewhere.8
His death in 1976 led to a change in policy in the nation with the leader after him adopting a Chinese variant of socialism with accompanying economic reform.9 Accordingly, from these reforms, the modern day economic boom emerged.
The protests described above in the Tiananmen Square were during the rule of Deng Xiaoping whose economic reforms led to economic growth with the main challenge being the differing ideologies held by the Maoists and progressive liberals.10
A number of social factors also contributed to the social unrest seen at the time. However, his vision was popular in the nation with the party’s constitution adopting it.
Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji who picked up after Deng continued with the economic goals and visions held by him, and it was during their time that Chinese nationalism emerged.11
During Mao’s rule, the authoritarian rule in China was harsh, and thus the economy was mainly agrarian with socialism being the main ideology.
This aspect led to the manifestations associated with authoritarian rule including social unrest, poverty, and torture for those who opposed the rule and struggles for power both within and without the party.
The Communist Party also continued its monopoly in ruling the nation with the same consequences being experienced under Deng’s rule. Some of the marked positive contributions of the rule in China were also experienced during this time with economic gains being the main thing.
Contemporary Rule in China
The Communist Party remains the ruling party in the country and it exercises social and political authority in the country as a monopoly. More than 20 years after the Tiananmen killings, “the prestige of the CCP has risen dramatically on the twin geysers of a long economic boom and a revived Han chauvinism”12.
The positive effects associated with authoritarian rule in China are being experienced with the economy being the main pillar for the existence of the rule.
There has been immense wealth creation under the watch of the Communist Party in this country and many of the foreign nations have long held the “idea that more wealth in China would lead to more democracy”13. However, this expectation has remained a mirage with the party remaining as the sole authority in the country.
Despite the wealth creation, which has resulted from the exploitation of the country’s resources, Cheng states that the wealth created still remains in the hands of political and economic elite “that has successfully co-opted business and intellectual circles”14.
This insight means that there is the creation of contemporary poverty, which can be compared to what existed before the rise of the party.
The social dissatisfaction, which was largely seen during Mao’s rule at the leadership of the Communist Party, has been skilfully countered by the use of nationalistic theories advanced by the leadership.
As Vogel states, “the CCP has also deliberately stoked and shaped Chinese nationalism, and many Chinese inside China now feel pride in the CCP’s model of authoritarian development”.15
Strengths and Weaknesses
Though the Chinese system of governance is considered as the most successful of its kind in reference to economic growth, the authoritarian rule has had both negative and positive effects on the region and the world at large, and this aspect then demonstrates its weaknesses and strengths.
As opposed to the free-market economies of the world where competition drives the pricing of items and operating costs of industries, the Chinese ruling party has single-handedly created the business and manufacturing environment in the country to suit its own desires.
Consequently, government support and protection for industries and small-scale enterprises has led to an economic boom.
Some of the countries around China and those in regions perceived to be a third world have also tried to adopt the system in China, “with the other authoritarian elites who seek modern formulas for maintaining their power while also growing their economies”16 trying to emulate the Chinese.
The system has also had impact internationally by providing an alternative to the traditional centres of global power, which have mainly been considered as the Western superpowers.17
Since decision-making in the nation is reserved to the ruling party and the ruling class, Beijing has been in a position to influence international decisions to its favour or that of its perceived allies since it is capable of offering aid and investment without any stings such as human rights demands attached to it.
This form of administration has attracted attention the world over, with McGregor stating, “Even in some democratic or recently democratic developing countries, including Thailand, the appeal of the China model has started to grow”18.
As a weakness to this form of leadership, the view that democracy is a competitor and a danger to the authoritarian rule has resulted in international support for other authoritarian systems elsewhere, even where these practices may be contravening human rights.
Given that it is a member of the Security Council in the United Nations, China has veto powers, which means that it has used this position to propagate international authoritarian rule by protecting nations perceived to be allies, but applying repressive tactics.19
McGregor explains this aspect by stating, “China offers diplomatic cover to repressive regimes at the United Nations and elsewhere”20. This practice has assisted in slowing democratic transition in nations that were initially under authoritarian rule with marked economic losses due to poor leadership.
One of the weaknesses of authoritarian rules is evident in China, which is repression of the citizens and denial of their rights. In recent times, the People’s Republic of China has experienced social unrest directed to the government with the main grievance being the absence of basic human rights in the country.
The Communist Party is consequently very frightened of the citizens, which is mainly, as Weller puts it, a result of the citizens becoming more “Rights conscious”21. Authoritarianism does not encourage the concept of rights consciousness, hence the reason for panic in the republic.
Some of the measures in place to prevent escalation of the effects of rights consciousness include the use of secret police, use of propaganda, promotion of nationalism through film and other cultural events, torture of those prosecutes, and stern punishment for the activists22.
Censorship is among the most important methods that have been used to ensure complete dominance and rule of the country by the CCP. According to Weller, “the CCP’s thought work is certainly censorship, but that is only half of its role, with the other half entailing the active cultivation of views that the government favours”23.
This assertion effectively means that the public in China is misinformed, with the government dictating what it would like people to know. The media is thus state-controlled with the industry recording poor growth due to interference.
Some of the other negative effects and weaknesses of the Chinese form of authoritarian rule include lack of accountability, widespread land grabbing in the country, human rights issues, and inequality in income amongst the various classes created by the system24.
The Internet has created a virtual system of enlightening the people in the country, and this aspect has ensured that the government has been exposed over wrongdoing on several occasions.
Therefore, this element is a contemporary worry for the authoritarian system in the country, as measures put in place to censure that the Internet exposures and complaints are widely unsuccessful.
Some of the issues that have caused widespread social unrest in the past include the selling of land that had been seized by local authorities with the intention of clearing their debts25.
Corruption, as discussed above, is also rife in the country and as Persson and Savulescu state, “Activists like Chen Guangcheng (Economist), a blind lawyer who exposed forced sterilisations, raised public flags around human rights violations stemming from local corruption”26.
The government had to change some of its policies especially after the exposure of the melamine-tainted milk scandal that poisoned thousands of babies27.
With the reduced control and professional oversight on the production processes, the government has been in a position to increase its output. However, the working conditions have always been a cause of worry for the international community with workers dying frequently due to work-related accidents and conditions.
The above weaknesses and strengths of the authoritarian system of governance in China demonstrate some of the positive contribution that such a system may have on society.
The overall effects that the Chinese system of governance has had on the living standards of her citizens are positive, but authoritarian rule does not always have the same effects. Therefore, it is important to consider some of the other authoritarian systems in existence elsewhere, so that an effective comparison may be plausible.
North Korea
North Korea is among the few remaining communist states in the contemporary world.
The resilience of the authoritarian system in the region has continually baffled many political analysts and economic planners, since the system has only been associated with negative effects on the economy and all the social avenues of life in the country.
Following the establishment of the state after the war with the democratic south, the country has undergone a series of hardships, which have contributed to the notion that the country is at the brink of changing its authoritarian form of governance.
However, as stated above, the authoritarian regime in the country has often managed to resist change even when faced with the most catastrophic of tragedies such as the famine that killed over a million people28.
Historical Perspective
The occupation of the Korean island by the Japanese led to the emergence of communist and other movements designed to fight for the independence of the nation, and after the defect of the Japanese, the north was occupied by the Soviets with the south being occupied by the Americans.
With the exit of the common enemy after the end of World War II, the Cold War began with Korea being at the middle of it. The northern communist regime attacked the south, with the South Koreans fighting alongside the Americans and the Chinese fighting alongside the Korean army29.
With the formation of the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ), the two Koreas have been separated since then and the north has embraced communism, but the south practices democracy.
Some of the challenges of having a communistic leadership in the North include the curtailing of the basic freedoms coupled with the fact that North Korea remains one of the most censored states in the world.
Freedom of expression is almost non-existence in the country and the government has complete control of all the systems in the country.
As Horak notes, “Kim’s regime established a socialist command economy, with priority development of heavy industry…agriculture was collectivised…a Marxist-Leninist political model of autonomy and self-reliance (chuch’e/juch’e)—was popularised”30.
Bennet and Lind also state, “By 1956, Kim Il Sung had achieved unchallenged supremacy in the KWP…with tight control over all aspects of the North Korean polity and society, Kim IL Sung became the ‘Great Leader’ and the object of a pervasive personality cult”31.
Unilateral unification talks collapsed between the two neighbouring countries in the year 1979 after the US refused to pull out its forces in the south. This move marked the beginning of heavy militarisation of the North.
Contemporary Rule in North Korea
The authoritarian system of governance has barely changed in the country, even with the latest change in the head of the communist regime. Some of the challenges that the authoritarian leadership has gone through include the withdrawal of Russian aid and the resulting economic meltdown associated with it32.
The leadership was also met with expectations of collapse following the rise to power of King Jong-il after his father’s death in the year 199433. This sad event was followed by the famine, which killed over a million people shortly thereafter and analysts thought this was the end of authoritarian rule in the country.
As Zook states, “Contemporary accounts warn that the regime is threatened by the growing flow of information into the country or by popular outcry touched off by the government’s 2009 bungling of currency reform”34.
Despite these predictions and challenges, the authoritarian rule in the country is as strong as it was in the beginning and social problems are a characteristic.
Strengths and Weaknesses
A major strength of the authoritarian rule in North Korea is the creation of nationalism in the country and provision of cheap labour that has enabled it to expand its militarisation35. However, the authoritarian rule has ensured that the country stays in abject poverty for only the ruling class enjoys the wealth of the country.
Though information on the living standards of the people living in this country is largely unavailable, the country ranks high among the nations with the highest number of people living below the poverty line.
The country has also been hit by an economic crisis, which has affected all avenues of life for the citizens. The country is also frequently faced by the threat of social unrest like the one seen in the North African countries, and this aspect has informed the censuring of information by the government agencies.
The country also spends much of the hard-earned money in the development of security systems at the expense of the necessary developments, which means that the growth in the economy is hardly enough to support the survival of the system.
Corruption, as in the Chinese system, is also a problem in this country and the major players are those in leadership positions. The information flows in the country from the foreign nations are making the citizens to become more and more enlightened, which means that the possibility of social unrest looms36.
Therefore, there is a likely loss of life in the event of such an occurrence, and this aspect is a weakness in the leadership.
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, authoritarian political systems have negative and positive contributions to any country with the net effects being largely negative.
The People’s Republic of China stands out as an example of such an authoritarian political system and the reign of the communist regime has ensured a strict economic environment where the country has emerged as one of the economic heavy weights of the world.
This element has not been without its challenge with the main one being the uprisings experienced in opposition to the rule.
North Korea is another country with an authoritarian form of leadership, and all citizens have felt the negative effects of this leadership. Authoritarian political systems are thus a risky way of governing a nation, as in most cases, the results are always negative and unpredictable.
Bibliography
Bader, Max. “Hegemonic political parties in post-Soviet Eurasia: Towards party-based authoritarianism.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44, no.3, (2011): 189-197.
Bennett, Bruce, and Jennifer Lind. “The Collapse of North Korea.” International Security 36, no. 2 (2011): 84-93.
Byman, Daniel, and Jennifer Lind. “Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea.” International Security 35, no. 1 (2010): 44-74.
Cheng, Li. “The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China.” China Quarterly 211, (2012): 595-623.
Horak, Sven. “Challenges to system stability in North Korea.” Journal of Asian Public Policy 4, no. 1 (2011): 121-25.
McGregor, Richard. “5 myths about the Chinese communist party.” Foreign Policy no. 184 (2011): 38-40.
Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Shambaugh, David. China’s Communist Party: atrophy and adaptation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.
Vogel, Ezra. Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2011.
Weller, Robert. Responsive Authoritarianism and Blind-Eye Governance in China. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Zook, Darren. “Reforming North Korea: Law, Politics, and the Market Economy.”Stanford Journal of International Law 48, no.1 (2012): 131-33.
Footnotes
1Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, Authoritarianism and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 200-241.
2Max Bader, “Hegemonic political parties in post-Soviet Eurasia: Towards party-based authoritarianism,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44, no.3 (2011): 191.
3Robert Weller, Responsive Authoritarianism and Blind-Eye Governance in China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 267-71.
4Ibid, 268
5Ibid, 270
6Li Cheng, “The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China,” China Quarterly 211 (2012): 596.
7Ibid, 6
8Ibid, 6
9David Shambaugh, China’s Communist Party: atrophy and adaptation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008) 84-99.
10 Ibid, 89
11 Ibid, 99.
12Cheng, 599.
13 Ibid, 611.
14 Ibid, 614.
15Ezra Vogel, Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China (Cambridge, Belknap Press, 2011), 111-119.
16Ibid, 155.
17Ibid, 119.
18Richard McGregor, “5 myths about the Chinese communist party,” Foreign Policy no. 184 (2011): 38-40.
19 Ibid, 38
20 Ibid, 40
21Weller, 271.
22 Ibid, 269
23 Ibid 271
24 Ibid 268
25Persson and Savulescu, 239.
26 Ibid, 240.
27 Ibid, 238.
28Sven Horak, “Challenges to system stability in North Korea,” Journal of Asian Public Policy 4, no. 1 (2011): 121.
29 Ibid 122
30 Ibid, 121
31Bruce Bennett and Jennifer Lind, “The Collapse of North Korea.” International Security 36, no. 2 (2011): 84.
32Ibid, 87.
33 Ibid, 88.
34Darren Zook, “Reforming North Korea: Law, Politics, and the Market Economy,” Stanford Journal of International Law 48 no.1 (2012): 131.
35Byman, Daniel, and Jennifer Lind. 2010. “Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea.” International Security 35, no. 1 (2010): 49.
Authoritarianism is a form of governmental rule in which the subjects are expected to be submissive. This type of government has been rather common in the Middle East and larger Asia. In such a form of government, citizens are denied their freedom of expression as well as their freedom to act. Moreover, authority in such systems is given only to the leader or the few elites in the society. The small group of elites or the leader is not held accountable to the people. Authoritarian leaders, as will be seen in the cases to be examined, are allowed to manipulate their power arbitrarily. This form of rule is the exact divergence of democracy. At the beginning of this century, there have been numerous revolutions as people rebel against the authoritarian rule in most nations. I believe that authoritarianism is practically impermanent.
One ideal illustration is the termination of China’s authoritarian government. China has always been under the leadership of CPP. It is what most people would refer to as a one-party nation. There is the notion that it is much easier to handle matters relating to policy adjustments and institutional adaptations in an authoritarian government. However, this concept is just a mere fallacy. The Chinese system is full of flaws. It is only in the unfolding of the Bo Xilai crisis that these flaws have become apparent to most people. The system is flawed with nepotism, frequent corruption, and unfair appointment of leaders. The ruling party has facilitated the rise of the few elites who have no respect whatsoever for the law. In the past decades, the Chinese government has been termed as being resilient and authoritarian.
The assumption is that CPP has established a means of creating a sustainable economy. The merits of this government include intra-party checks, increased national strength, and societal diversity. However, these factors should not fool you for the government’s authoritarian system is still vulnerable. The recent socio-economic crises have proven that the resilient authoritarian system has its vulnerabilities as well. In the case of Bo, he had made his name as a leader with firm convictions against corruption. Ironically, it turned out that he was involved in a series of corrupt cases or what is being termed as the mafia. This, among other issues, has threatened the unity of the party. The party is gradually losing its credibility among the civilians. China is now heading for major transitions. For one, the current authoritarian government is less powerful compared to past authoritarian leaders. Such leaders as Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong had greater influence and much more power than the current government. The nation’s leadership is gradually shifting from the hands of individuals and eventually becoming a collective system. The government is becoming responsible to the people, lesser corrupt, and also relatively more representative. It confirms my hypothesis that authoritarianism is impermanent.
Another illustration is Yusha’s regime which eventually collapsed in 1979. The system came to an end after President Park Chug Hee was assassinated by his chief intelligence aide. Some political scientists argue that the assassination helped save the nation from experiencing a revolutionary bloodbath. While Chung Hee was still in power, there began to form cracks in his government. His death marked the end of the authoritarian rule in South Korea. As such, the people went ahead and even had a referendum. They approved a new constitution which upheld democracy. However, the process of restoring democracy was hindered as another authoritarian rose to power in 1980. As most scholars argue, this was a result of the power structure still resembling the authoritarian system. However, the authoritarian system was again opposed from 1987 to 1992. There were all forms of violence especially after Roh Tae Woo was nominated as Chun’s successor. Students went on rampage and street violence was at its highest across the nation. To the surprise of all involved, Tae Woo wanted to have a democratic government. The first democratic elections were held in December 1992.
Is economic performance legitimacy the most important factor in explaining authoritarian persistence in the Asia-Pacific?
Over the past years, the authoritarian forms of government have remained in power owing to the notion that they deliver economic performance legitimacy. In the case of China, having CPP as the only party has indeed facilitated fast economic growth in the nation. For one, statistics show that the country’s economy by 2002 had grown by eight times compared to how it was in 1978. Within the same period, there was a 600% increase in per capita income. Per capita income in 1978 and 2003 was $151 and $1,097 respectively. While economic growth was noted, there were also improvements in the social structure. The rate of urbanization increased by 21%.
In the case of Korea, Park Chung Hee was known to create development plans. For instance, he created a five-year development plan in 1962. The top priorities, in this case, were national security and economic growth. There was also a domestic policy strategy that would ensure the realization of the plan. For the project to be achieved, there was the need to implement political stability which implied that the military was willing and ready to do all it took to ensure stability in the nation. As such, financial institutions, the labor market, and businesses were compelled to comply with the laid directives. The government made major reforms which included enhancing the tax system, changes in the tariff system, and the overhaul of the entire tax structure. The primary aim of such reforms was to liberalize the economy and enhance the economic growth rate.
However, this may not apply in all cases. The authoritarian government in Korea has shocked many. This comes after its reign continues even with the economic crisis being experienced in the nation. It is indeed a unique case. As Yun-Jo Cho identifies, countries such as Indonesia were quick to oust their dictators when they were hit by an economical crisis. North Korea has gone against the propositions of the democratization theory. The main reason, as Cho writes, is that North Korea has personalistic authoritarians. This is one authoritarian system that has proven to be resilient even in the face of crisis.
Are factors explaining regime stability in North Korea applicable to other countries?
I am surprised to learn that North Korea is still under the leadership of an authoritarian regime. Even in the face of the economic crisis the system still holds. The primary factor that sustained this regime was the strong personality of Kim II-Sung. He had ruled over the nation for 40 years. He managed to establish the personalistic neo-patrimonial element. His rule of law was not impersonal but rather a personal patronage network. His death resulted in the political crisis that only made the economic crises greater than they were before. As Cho mentions, countries such as Indonesia had a well-established authoritarian system that soon collapsed after they were hit by the economic crisis. According to the democratization theory, military, personalized and one-party authoritarianism collapse mainly in the face of economic crisis. Theoretically, an economic crisis triggers a revolution among the citizens.
DPRK has managed to establish an incentive system. It is whereby those within the government receive incentives even amid an economic crisis. Thereby, the chances of a split within the government structure are petite. Such a form of government enjoys the benefits of resistance to internal conflict. Those in the government have a lower tendency to uphold reforms and are deprived of their political independence. In such a case, the latter seems like a little price to pay for all the material inducements afforded to them.
Most of the nations exercising one-party authoritarianism are facing the challenge of uniting all the involved members. Countries such as China are unable to maintain the authoritarian rule as their leading parties gradually succumb to the pressures mounted on them by economic and social faces. DPRK has proven to be an exceptional case. The difference may be in the form of authoritarianism used or simply the unification of a good-headed dictator. The latter could explain why the system was shaken after the death of II-Sung. The bottom line is that authoritarianism may not be ideal, but it seems to b working for this nation. The irony, however, lies in its name The Democratic Republic of Korea. It is neither a republic nor a Democrat.