Category: Authoritarianism

Amongst the various systems of governance, Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism have many adherents the world over. Both, authoritarian as well as totalitarian states have many similarities and some differences. This essay compares and contrasts current examples of an authoritarian state, Singapore, and a totalitarian state, China.

Definitional

The Little Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘authoritarian’ as “demanding strict obedience of authority and rulers” (42) and ‘totalitarian’ as “(of a system government) consisting of only one leader or party and having complete power and control over the people” (745). The dictionary meaning clearly encapsulates the basic similarity and the difference between both forms of government. Both forms of government emphasize ‘obedience’ as the guiding principle for governance. However, an authoritarian ruler may allow greater freedom, unlike a totalitarian government which demands total control. Totalitarianism is thus an extreme form of authoritarianism (Garner and Ferdinand 27). In an authoritarian state near-total power is concentrated in an individual or a party (Munroe 41) while in a totalitarian state “no interest falls outside the embrace of the state or the wielders of power that the purposes of individuals, groups, and society are subordinate to those of the state” (Curtis 5).

Political Structure

Authoritarian governments have a highly stratified political structure that works to ensure strict obedience to the country’s laws. Singapore, though a parliamentary democracy with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary system of government has been ruled by the People’s Action Party (PAP) since it won self-governance from Britain in 1959. Though there are opposition parties in the country, these have a marginal effect on policy formulations of the state. In an authoritarian system, the leader acquires overriding powers and usually rules for a long period of time till he is deposed or chooses a successor, or perpetuates a dynastic rule. In Singapore, Goh Chok Tong became the Prime Minister taking over from Lee Kuan Yew in 1990 who was then replaced by Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew’s eldest son. Thus Singapore has followed the classical characteristic of an authoritarian regime when it comes to leadership issues. While Garner and Ferdinand may have classified China to be an authoritarian regime (33), others have more convincingly classified China to be a totalitarian state. In a totalitarian state, the leader or the political party enjoys absolute power and no opposition parties are allowed to exist. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ruled China since the civil war in 1949. The CCP has an opaque system of electing its leaders and is a strict hierarchy based. The Chairman of the Communist Party of China and the CCP has absolute power and most of the leaders chosen remain in office till ripe old age. China was governed by Mao Tse Tung from 1949 to 1976 until his death. Leaders chosen thereafter have generally been long-lasting. In a totalitarian system, the leader of the political party is the main reason for the state to survive. In China too, the main aim of the government is to ensure the continuance of CCP rule.

Ideological Underpinnings

All states have ideologies, but in the case of authoritarian and totalitarian states, these ideologies are state-sanctioned ideologies. While in the case of an authoritarian state, the government may have an overriding ideology, it may allow other forms of thinking to exist in the state as long as such ideologies do not impinge upon state policies and the smooth functioning of the administration. In Singapore, the state’s ideology has rested on authoritarianism in the early years which has changed to ‘Communitarianism’ in recent times (Chua 10-11). Singapore’s leaders believe in a ‘guided democracy’ steeped in Confucianism as the recipe for its economic success. In a totalitarian state, the state ideology is the only ideology permitted demanding “total conformity, and seek[s] total control” (Rejai 72). The Chinese revolution gave rise to a totalitarian state (Rejai 228) with Marxist-Leninist ideology as interpreted by Mao Tse Tung in his Little Red Book becoming the guiding ideology of the state. The present-day CCP while downplaying Mao’s aphorisms has kept the central ideology based on Marxism-Leninism intact albeit, modifying it to ensure steady economic progress.

Tools – Relationship with the Armed Forces, Police, and the Secret Service

All authoritarian governments maintain a stronghold over their armed forces, police, and secret services. Higher leadership of the armed forces is carefully groomed and picked at an early stage itself to ensure obedience to government policies. Singapore too follows this model strictly. To ensure that no armed forces leader becomes an entrenched power broker, the Singapore government has deliberately kept the age profile of its defense leadership young ostensibly, to keep military leadership ‘dynamic’. The officers of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) retire by the age of 50 (Chow 1) while the world average is 60 in any other democratic country. Totalitarian governments magnify the degree of control over its armed forces, paramilitary and secret service. Totalitarian governments understand that such a stranglehold is necessary since it is only the armed forces that have the wherewithal to challenge their supremacy. To ensure, complete obedience, totalitarian systems involve the leaders of the armed forces in governance to the extent possible so as to keep them happy and satisfied at the same time ensuring that strict obedience is maintained at lower levels of the military hierarchy. In China, the military is part of the political system. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is directly controlled by the Central Military Commission (CMC) of the CCP. Usually, the Chairman CCP also holds the chairmanship of the CMC or ensures that the chairmanship is held by a trusted colleague. Despite the fact that Communist ideology calls for egalitarianism, in practice, the CCP ensures that the leaders of the PLA are comfortably ensconced with their business prospects well looked after including prospects for their siblings. The police and secret service serve to enforce the government’s rules, censorship, and control over the masses, where fear is the key.

Relationship with the Society

In an authoritarian state, the government apparatus is concerned with strict obedience to its laws and allows little or no participation of the common citizen in the administrative processes of the government. The authoritarian state however does not usually dictate morality, social conduct, and religious beliefs of its citizens except where they clash with the laid down rules of the government. In Singapore, the government does not interfere with the religious or human rights of its citizens or their social conduct. They, however, are quite strict in enforcing certain civic behavior such as banning chewing gum except for therapeutic purposes (Prystay), littering, spitting, spray paint for which hefty fines and corporal punishment is meted out without exception (Branigin). In a totalitarian state, the state tries to completely eclipse the society (Garner and Ferdinand 29) and transform it to adhere to its ideology. All forms of social conduct are closely monitored and the transformation of the society strives through propaganda, coercive use of state power, harsh punishments, and almost no respect for normally held perceptions of Human rights. The development of charismatic cult personality either around a particular leader or the party as a whole is an operative principle in a totalitarian state, though authoritarian states can also resort to such strategies (Garner and Ferdinand 51). In Singapore, it was the ‘non-nonsense charismatic leadership of Lee Kuan Yew which was projected as the means for Singapore’s success and in China, after Mao Tse Tung, Jiang Zemin, the President of China from 1993 to 2003, was projected as a charismatic strong and ruthless leader. Jiang cleverly used the media and propaganda to project an image of a firm, well-meaning leader. Jiang’s persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been likened to genocide and crimes against humanity (WOIPFG 1). It comes as no surprise that a ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’ can only happen in a totalitarian state such as China that leads the world tally for the highest number of executions with around 8000 people being executed annually (Guangze 39).

Control Over Economy

In an authoritarian state, control over the economy is not as restrictive as it is in a totalitarian system. In fact, in an authoritarian government, economic practices obey norms of market dynamics with economists and industry players having considerable leeway in deciding their future course of action. Singapore has followed this model with great success transforming a once dusty outpost in South East Asia into an economic powerhouse. This approach contrasts strikingly with a totalitarian government where the government controls every aspect of economic activity and maintains strict control over all aspects of the economy. China too follows this approach without exception. In the early years, the CCP’s socialist economic practices brought on disastrous famines during the ‘Great Leap Forward’ from 1958 to 1961. The CCP under Deng Xiaoping learned its lessons and initiated market reforms which have seen a stupendous double-digit annual growth in GDP of China albeit, with strict central control.

In conclusion, it can be stated that both authoritarian and totalitarian states share many commonalities and differences. Singapore, an authoritarian state, and China, a totalitarian state share many of these characteristics. While Singapore strives to perpetuate a ‘guided democracy’ based on Confucian ideology, China is attempting to steer its country maintaining its interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideology under modern economic imperatives. While Singapore does not attempt to mold its society, China believes in transforming its citizens in ways acceptable to the CCP. Singapore’s nuanced but firm grip over its armed forces contrasts with China’s absolute control over its forces. In the final analysis, it can be stated that both authoritarian and totalitarian states rely on authority as the overriding precept of governance. While in the case of authoritarian states this authority is selectively applied, in totalitarian states, the application of such state authority is absolute.

References

Angus, Stevenson, Julia Elliott and Jones Richard, The Little Oxford English Dictionary. Eighth. NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Branigin, William. “Singapore Sets New Caning Sentence.”1994. High Beam Research. Web.

Chow, Jermin. “SAF Officers to Retire at 50.” 2009. StraitsTimes. Web.

Chua, Beng-Huat. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. NY: Routledge, 1997.

Curtis, Michael. Totalitarianism. NJ: Transanction Publishers, 1979.

Garner, Robert and Peter Ferdinand. Introduction to Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Guangze, Wang. “The Mystery of China’s Death Penalty Figures.” HRIC. Web.

Munroe, Trevor. An Introduction to Politics: Lectures for First-year Students. Traverse City, MI: Canoe Press, 2002.

Prystay, Chris. “At Long Last, Gum is Legal in S’pore, But There are Strings.” 2004. Asian Wall Street Journal. Web.

Rejai, Mostafa. Political Ideologies: A Comparative Approach. NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.

WOIPFG. “An Investigation Report on Jiang Zemin’s Crime of Genocide in the Persecution of Falun Gong – Part One.” 2007.

Introduction

Asian values refer to a concept developed in the in the second half of the 20^th century, as way of justifying authoritarian regimes in Asia (Clammer 1992). It is based on the existence of beliefs and an extraordinary set of institutions, and political ideologies that are a reflection of the region’s rich culture and history. This concept has a more political inclination than a traditional affiliation as many would think (Clammer 1992). There is no single definition for this term owing to the varied backgrounds of its proponents. However, there are notable principles governing this concept. In particular, the concept concentrates on humanism, and family, national and corporation loyalty (Vittachi 1996). In other words, it is seen to put the society’s stability and prosperity as a priority over personal freedom. In addition, the concept encourages academic and technological excellence as well as work ethics and disciplined spending habits.

The concept discourages pluralism but encourages single party rule. The concept also works towards establishing social harmony and consensus and discourages dissent and confrontations (Vittachi 1996). In addition, the concept demands that people should prioritize the welfare of the community and not their individual rights. Individuals are supposed to show loyalty to the authorities like the government, teachers and parents (Clammer 1992). This concept tends to favor authoritarianism. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes are characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power safeguarded by political repression and deterrence of potential challengers. It employs arbitrary law as opposed to the rule of law (Othman et al. 2008). This form of governance is a characterization of informal and unregulated political power or leadership that is self proclaimed. This paper endeavors to critically analyze Mahathir Mohmad’s and Lee Kuan Yew’s debate on Asian values in their support of authoritarianism‘s suitability to Southeast Asia tradition.

A Brief History of the Political Significance Asian Values

The concepts of Asian values had gained popularity in the political circles of China, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan and Malaysia (Quah 19900. In Indonesia and Malaysia, this concept gained support from the natives because it brought harmony between various ethnic and religious groups in the two countries. Most importantly, this concept enhanced religious tolerance amongst the ethic communities in the two countries. Islam, the dominant Malaysian religion, Hinduism and humanism of the ethnic Chinese gained a tremendous interrelation as a result of Asian values. In addition, Asian values represented an original concept developed by the Asian communities and not borrowed from the West (Quah 1990).

The concept also gained solid popularity in some nationalist circles of Japan because it proved the maturity of Asian leadership. Throughout the 1960s and 1980s, tremendous growth was realized in the Southeast Asia owing to the embracement of the Asian values. Mahathir Mohmad was the prime minister of Malaysia during the economic renaissance period. On the other hand, Lee Kuan Yew was the prime minister of Singapore at that moment. These two leaders played a significant role in marketing Asian values. Lee argued that as much as the economic and political maturity influence a country’s growth, so does culture 9Quah 1990). Lee indicated culture plays an important role in enhancing a country’s growth when compared to economic and political maturity. It is regrettable that the concept of Asian values lost value following the financial crisis that threatened many Asian economies in the final years of the 20^th century.

Singapore was a key British trading center. After its independence, Singapore joined the Malaysian federation in 1963. This union did not last for a long time because tensions arose between Singapore’s Peoples action Party and Malaysian ruling alliance party. Following its departure from the Malaysian federation, Singapore aimed to strengthen its sovereignty. Thus, it joined the United Nations and the commonwealth and started establishing diplomatic relationships with other nations. At the same time, Yew’s government began to establish internal legitimacy. Thus, in order to reduce ethnic tensions, a constitutional commission was established. The success of these strategies was boosted by the constant reminder by Lee to the people of Singapore and Southeast Asia at large to embrace the concept of Asian values. Lee explains that the Western and Eastern cultures are totally different and that what works in the East might to necessarily work in the West.

Lee suggests that Asian values are unique and they regard an individual not as a separate entity but as part of a family which is then part of the society. Lee notes that mere cultural prescriptions alone cannot capture the cultural role in encouraging economic growth. Lew cautions that cultures that do not focus on scholarship, thrift and hard work might encounter difficulties in cultivating economic growth. Lee further explains that Asian values encompass scholarship, thrift and hard work. He notes that Asian values have created a new route to economic prosperity that is inconsistent with democracy. The Asian values concept indicates that values like hard work and discipline are social structures that can be transferred to political structure. In real sense, Lee argues that Asian values concept is a rejection of modernization. Studies have shown that careful balancing of despotic and infrastructural capacity blocks modernization. The case of Singapore proves that maintaining non democracy in an advanced economy calls for a skillfully engineered control.

Mahathir Mohmad’s View on Asian Values and Authoritarianism

Mahathir, the former Malaysian Prime minister who sat on the throne from 1981 to 2003, was a key vocalist of the Asian values (Aziz 1990). Mahathir notes that Asian values concept is based on Malay-Islamic culture and it should be guarded to prevent its absorption by Western values. According to Mahathir, Malayness has three basic features namely traditional customs, Islam and feudalism (Aziz 1990). The former Malaysian prime minister stressed his point through his book titled, ‘The Malay Dilemma’. He argued that these features should be accepted as realities and perhaps adapted to current needs. Mahathir was against universalism and the Western liberal view of human rights. Mahathir believed that universalism and the Western view of human rights cannot corrupt Malaysian culture and religious beliefs.

Mahathir later realized that Western values are here to stay and launched a book titled ‘Look East’ in 1982, as a means of blocking the entrenchment of Western values in Malaysia and East Asia at large. During the United Malays national organization general assembly of 1982, Mahathir informed the congregation that they should look to the east and copy the diligence found there and drop Western values that they might have absorbed. Experts have branded the Malaysian view of Asian values as the Mahathir model to delink it from other models of Asian values like the Singaporean model that emphasizes on humanism and the Chinese model that blends Chinese, communist and Nationalist values (Koo 1995). Basically, the Mahathir model is characterized by Malay-Islamic values and as such, Mahathir championed the entrenchment of his model in Malaysia. Mahathir echoed Asian values despite the fact that the Islamic ethos of Malaysia differ significantly from the neo humanism of Singapore and other Sino centered countries in East Asia (Koo 1995). This model is influential in shaping government agendas. Stability and enforced social cohesion in a mixed society has been noted as a key component of Asian values.

Mahathir of Malaysia and Lee of Singapore echoed Asian values in the wake of democratization, flourishing economy and political stability of the early 1990s, before the economic crisis that emerged in 1997 which weakened East Asian economies. Mahathir’s perspective on Asian values is guided by three key features namely strong authority, a family based society and the prioritization of the community over the individual. On the other hand, Mahathir’s view on Asian values has one unique feature. Mahathir’s view tends to extract some lessons from Western values so as to compare the state and the society to modernity. Most importantly, Mahathir’s point of view seems to be as a result of numerous discussions on universalism and cultural relativism. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a model that discourages western imperialism but encourages the principle of strong governance and protection of the community.

It can be noted that Mahathir’s view on Asian values protects authoritarisim. Mahathir model encourages the protection of cultural values from interference by Western cultures. Mahathir indicates that economic growth can be achieved without undergoing modernization. However, modernization can be used to gauge the progress of any given society.

Lee Kuan Yew’s Debate on Asian Values and Authoritarianism

Yew’s explanation of Asian values indicates that cultural inclination which encourages respect for authority and hard work, allows East Asian country’s to pursue liberal economic policies without democracy (Barr, 2002). However, Lee is reluctant to call the experience in Singapore a model because it is not clear whether the development that Singapore experienced can be replicated elsewhere. Other regions like Taiwan and South Korea that had authoritarian regimes eventually embraced democracy. The discussion on whether Yew’s views on Asian values support Authoritarianism can be well understood when viewed in light of the developments that took place in the second half of the 20^th century. Putting this in mind, it will be agreed that modernization eventually leads to democratization. Experts argue that the development of any given state is a reflection of the social and economic structure within that particular state. Proponents of modernization theory argue when incomes rise, a middle class develops that changes conditions of the middle class and the politic stratification (Barr, 2002).

Citizens of the middle class tend to associate with a number of competing political affiliations; features that result into cross cutting interests that eventually modernize the competing groups. According to Yew’s view of Asian values, culture is the underlying principle that governs the success of any given state (Lee 1998). Good Cultural practices encourage respect for human values and uphold traditions. East Asia is one of the regions in the world where culture is highly valued. However, as many regions around the globe, cultural values have been replaced by modernization owing to the influence by Western cultures. Although some cultural values are somewhat unnecessary, the overall aim of any given culture is to uphold human dignity and humanism (Lee 1998). Most of the cultures of the world have been significantly influenced by modernization. Modernization from the Western culture often comes along with democratization. However, Yew indicated that modernization can be embraced without necessarily eroding cultural value. Thus, Yew suggested that economic growth could still be realized without democratization that modernization and Western cultures bring (Lee 1998). During his tenure, Singapore realized tremendous economic empowerment. Yew attributed the success to the concept of Asian values. Yew argued that economic success could still be realized under non democratized societies (Quah 1990).

The Perspective of Asian Values in the 1990s

The initial debate on Asian Values in the early 1990s concentrated on the shared core values of the Asian region; collectivism and consensus (Pathmanaathan 1984). Apparently, collectivism and consensus differ from Western values which concentrate on liberalism values like upholding human rights, promotion of the freedom of speech and individuality. In addition, it should be noted that Asia has a huge cultural and religious diversity. However, the core values of the concept of Asian values are three namely consensus, collectivism and shared values (Pathmanaathan 1984). The wide cultural diversity in Asia has led to the emergence of different inflections of the Asian values. This has caused various ethnic and religious groups in the Asian population, to have varied definitions of Asian values.

In the early 1990s, the discussion on Asian values was brought into the lime light by the former prime minister of Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew. The discussion stemmed from the arguments relating to human right issues in the context of Asia. According to Lee, Asian values differ remarkably from Western values and thus cannot be viewed from a global perspective. Lee noted that the concept of Asian values is guided by consensus, collectivism and shared values. The individuals’ needs come second after others or societal needs. As such, human rights; a phenomenon from the West, cannot be entrenched in the Asian values because it goes against the guiding principles of the Asian values concept. The difference between the Asian values and the Western values was also echoed by Mahathir, the former Prime minister of Malaysia.

Mahathir was extremely vocal in marketing Asian values. Mahathir loudly stated that Asian have their own cultural and ideological practices which are extremely different from those practiced in the West. Mahathir also stated that Asian should conduct their daily activities by observing the three core values of the Asian concept; consensus, collectivism and shared values. Mahathir frequently indicated that these values constitute the eastern work ethics and are the pillar of Asian values. As stated earlier, the debate on Asian values arose in the wake of public discussions on human right issues which were challenged by cultural diversity. Scholars have discovered that concepts of Asian values such as humanism, and Islam tend to enhance the feeling of selflessness over individualism, and they prioritize family and community.

In addition, Lee noted that Confucianism is the guiding principle to Asian prosperity. Lee acknowledged the cultural diversity in Singapore and changed his notion of Confucianism to shared values in order to accommodate every citizen’s wish. Lee believes that the concept of Asian values as derived from Confucianism has represented the social behavior of communities in the Asian content. Chinese-Confucian, Malay-Muslim and Indian-Hindu are the key communities found in this region.

Other scholars point out that Mahathir’s view of Asian values challenges the neo imperialism of Western cultures (Pathmanaathan 1984). Mahathir is said to have believed that Western people are taking for granted their values by letting the market driven society to take charge of their values. In contrast, Mahathir notes that Asian values uphold humanism and put the family and society first. He also notes that modernization which is as a result of Western cultures leads to moral decay in the society. Scholars have noted that Asian values encourage respect, social harmony and consensus. In other words, the collective good of the society at large comes first. Mahathir and Lee have been on the forefront in marketing Asian values and they have unanimously agreed that Asian values are remarkably different from Western values. While Lee looks at Confucianism as the guiding principle for the region’s success, Mahathir echoes eastern working ethics as the defining principle of the region’s economic and political prosperity.

Asian countries recorded huge economic growth in the 1960s a feature that prompted the West to examine key factors that contributed to the economic success. The concepts of Confucianism and symbiosism which are based on family values came out as the guiding principles (Milne & Mauzy 1990). Eventually, the West started to realize that Asian values could not be taken for granted. The Western world came to understand that combined effects of Confucianism which gives priority to the community contributed to the success. This led to the development of the state led development model which puts economic development first. Asian values played a significant role in the formulation of the development model. In this model, the state, paternalism, nationalism and entrepreneurial spirit combine to bring the anticipated economic growth.

This model enabled Southeast Asia states to flourish economically and many scholars thought that the development model can be emulated elsewhere. On the contrary, Mahathir and Lee stated that Asian values are unique to the Southeast region owing to its cultural and religious diversity (Milne & Mauzy 1990). The economical success in the South Asia gave the two leaders the strength to sale the concept of Asian value in the region. The two leaders echoed that economic success can still be realized without embracing Western led modernization. This was a clear indication of their support for authoritarianism since they knew Western ideologies were likely to erase or disable their mode of governance.

Conclusion

This paper has noted that the concept of Asian values has been used by Mahathir and Lee to support authoritarisim in Southeast Asia. Lee and Mahathir have played a significant role in echoing Asian values. The two leaders are the pioneers of the Asian values concept and they worked tirelessly to defend the interests of Asia from potential harm by Western values. Their perspective of Asian values puts the family and community in the forefront. The two leaders tend to agree on one thing that Western values bring modernization. However, they boldly state that Asian region can achieve the desired success without emulating Western values. They indicate that the concept of Asian values is far much better than the so called Western values. Mahathir cautions that modernization that comes along with western values leads to moral decay in the society. The two leaders’ perspective of the Asian values concept tends to encourage authoritarisim. Thus, the two leaders were against the entrenchment of Western values because they did not want Western values to challenge the Authoritarian rule common in Southeast Asia.

References

Aziz, Z 1990, Mahathir: Triumph after Trials, Abdul Majeed Publications, Kuala Lumpur.

Barr, M 2002, Cultural Politics and Asian Values: the Tepid War, Rutledge, London.

Clammer, J 1992, “Democratic Values: The Establishment of a “National Ideology” and its Implications for Singapore Political Future”, in Garry Rodan (ed.) Singapore Changes Guard: Social, Political and Economic Directions of the 1990s,Longman, Melbourne.

Khoo, B 1995, Paradoxes of Mahathirism: An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mohamad, Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.

Lee K 1998, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, Times Editions, Manila.

Othman, N et al. 2008, Sharing the Nation Faith, Difference Power and the State 50 Years After Merdeka, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Petaling Java.

Pathmanaathan, M 1984, Winds of Change. The Mahathir Impact on Malaysia’s Foreign Policy, East view Productions, Kuala Lumpar.

Quah, J 1990, In Search of Singapore’s National Values, Times Academic Press for the Institute of Policy Studies, Manila.

Milne, R, and Mauzy, K 1990, Singapore The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew. Boulder: West view, Bouder.

Vittachi, N 1996, Asian Values, Chameleon Press, Hong Kong.

Introduction

In the world, there are different forms of regimes. The most notable ones are democracy and authoritarian regimes. The authoritarian regime is based on either one-party or one-man rule.¹ In China, one party – Chinese Communist Party (CCP) orchestrates the authoritarian regime. The CCP came to power in 1949 with promises of democracy and liberal constitution.² However, after taking control of the country, the CCP leader, Mao Zedong shifted towards an authoritarian rule.

Today, CCP has considerably maintained the authoritarian leadership introduced by Mao Zedong. The ideologies of CCP rule China through policymaking and their implementation. The regime considers itself as a form of democracy on grounds that it serves the people, rules at their interests, and many Chinese citizens accept it. Considerably, CCP promotes leadership competence, carries out political succession in an orderly manner, recruits popular support, and generates effective public policies.³ The authority of authoritarian rule has never been questioned as rights protection movements of petitioners, bloggers, lawyers, journalists and other civil society organizations such as religious groups continue to keep a low profile to avoid oppression.

Mainly, CCP resists any attempts to negotiate with the society as equal partners because it considers such acts as negating the leadership of the CCP and the entire socialist system.⁴ In particular, the regime is willing to change so long as it stays in power but unwilling to relax the ban on autonomous political forces. This paper reviews the authoritarian rule under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China’s political, social, and economic perspectives.

Authoritarian Crisis, Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square Protests

In China, the crisis of authoritarianism reached its dramatic heights in the spring of 1989 when students calling for democracy carried out protests in Tiananmen Square.⁵ The Chinese government flaunted its power by massacring its citizens and deceitfully pretending that the nonviolent demonstrators were indeed “hooligans” and ‘thugs” and that most of the casualties were heavily armed soldiers.⁶ The events leading to the Tiananmen Square protests can be traced back to Mao Zedong regime when he shifted from democracy to authoritarian rule. Notably, the disaster of Mao’s rule and hostility towards formal education made the national experience a shortage of training individuals. Further, Maoist system brought Cultural Revolution, which led to a loss of an entire generation. Pye points out that the decades of hardships and unmatched sacrifices amounted to nothing, as China’s per capita income was equal to that of Tanzania and Somalia.⁷

After Mao, Deng Xiaoping regime engaged itself in desperate efforts to transform the economy. At the time, 80 percent of the Chinese population was living in rural areas, with peasants still relying on skillful farming.⁸ China could have carried out initial agricultural reforms with ease; however, the shortage of technically trained individuals and the gross neglect of infrastructure made reforms hard to implement. As a result, in 1988, the Chinese economy started to falter, the price reform mired, the leadership became adrift, the inflation emerged, corruption activities increased, and professors realized that they were earning less than cab drivers and waiters.⁹

At that time, the students realized that China was in trouble. Worse still, the Chinese leadership held two sides of modern skills. Although it sent tens of thousands of students abroad, the government also set wage differentials whose ratio between technically skilled labor and manual labor was unfavorable for skilled workers during the Mao years.¹⁰ Since Tiananmen event, the Chinese government started punishing students in ways that will eventually affect the future development of the country.

According to Pye, “the turmoil of Cultural Revolution in China and the subsequent crisis of legitimacy … have been central features of traditional Chinese political culture.”¹¹ Although Deng Xiaoping regime had the will of carrying out economic reforms, “the ten years of disaster” made them extremely hesitant about liberalizing the political system. As a result, Deng Xiaoping failed to offer a political vision for China and in the mid-1980s. Notably, Deng Xiaoping failed to offer a political vision for China and as such, in the mid-1980s there was an increasingly acute crisis of legitimacy based on shameless corruption and the spirit of crass materialization.¹² In the end, the economy continued to deteriorate. In effect, the false idea of Deng’s that political stagnation could provide a healthy environment for economic development led to the dissolution and frustration for concerned people – citizens, students, and leaders themselves.

Social Organizations and Chinese Community Party (CCP) Control

Under the CCP, China does not advocate for a free society that organizes and articulates its interests. Instead, Chinese government advocates for the society to be restricted and its activities restrained by the state.¹³ Since the 1980s, the state and CCP continue to influence main groups in the society by binding them into their affiliated organizations. To hinder any form of mass opposition, the state extended its organization, coordination, and supervision as possible. According to Saich, “this move by the state from insulation from society to integration within it can be interpreted as an attempt to prevent a plurality of definitions arising by revising the structure of the regime and the state’s relationship to society.”¹⁴

In this sense, the aim of the state is to thwart or limit the emergence of a possibility of political-ideological definitions. Notably, the tendency to thwart organizational pluralism is based on the fear of probable social unrest and the opposition created by the reforms. Specifically, the state has a consistent fear that organizations will act as safe havens for groups participating in political activities or representing the interests of displeased peasants and workers.¹⁵ Again, the Chinese government is afraid of events of Asian Financial Crisis, which saw several authoritarian regimes face challenges of street demonstrations.

Further, the state does not want to encounter challenges associated with the society holding the government and its leaders more accountable. For instance, the fall of Indonesian leader Suharto during Asian Financial Crisis brought concerns to the Chinese government, which in turn ordered the media to downplay the coverage of the events.¹⁶ Further, the leaders are afraid of developments in other parts of Asia that might lead to the internal questioning of the wisdom of using development strategy that depends on market forces in the economy combined with centralized power structures.

In spite of Chinese restrictive aspect on social organizations, displeased groups are still forming such organizations. Notably, numerous underground groups associated with workers have emerged with names such as Anti-Unemployment Group and Anti-Hunger League.¹⁷ On a daily basis, go-slows, strikes, rural unrests, and sit-ins are common among these underground groups. These groups and their respective events are causing concerns to the authorities that some dissident and underground religious movements have officially registered as cultural or sporting events to avoid detection.

Internet Censorship, Monitoring, and Manipulation

The statements made by the government demonstrate the internet is vital and dangerous. Notably, the 2010 government white paper, “The Internet in China” noted that rapid, nationwide expansion of the internet and mobile device penetration is a strategic priority.¹⁸ The Chinese government considers the internet as requisite for poverty alleviation, education, and efficient conveyance of government information and services to the public. Further, China’s development of a vibrant, indigenous internet and telecommunication sector is indispensable for its long-term global economic competitiveness.

On the other hand, China considers the Internet as dangerous. In this regard, the government deploys authoritarian practices to manage its use. MacKinnon regards Chinese citizens “as residents of a networked authoritarian society.”¹⁹ Notably, hundreds of million people use the internet for fun, freedom and without much fear from the government like a decade ago. However, the government continues to monitor the activities of the people on the internet. Further, the government censors and manipulates online conversations to an extent that no individual can organize a feasible opposition movement. The number of indictments and arrests on charges of endangering state security in terms of political, ethnic and religious dissent increased by more than twofold in 2008 for the second period of three years.

The Chinese people are not aware of such trends due to the presence of information gap that makes it hard for many people to see the need for having a political change. MacKinnon asserts that, “the system does not control all of the people all of the time, but it is effective enough that even most of China’s best and brightest are not aware of the extent to which their understanding of their own country – let alone the broader world – is being blinkered and manipulated.”²⁰ For instance, when a documentary crew from the US showed university students in Beijing an iconic 1989 photo of a man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, the students were unable to recognize the man or the event, despite their universities having high-speed internet access.

Tibet and Quest for Autonomy

The quest for self-rule in Tibet demonstrates the authoritarian aspect of China. According to Davis, the situation in Tibet demonstrates one of the most persistent and difficult human rights problems across the globe. Although Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama fled the region in 1959, the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharamsala (India) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government have not managed to resolve the issue.²¹ The issue is aggravated by the fact that Chinese officials consider Tibetans loyalty to Dalai Lama as a huge threat as he can marshal impressive popular support from his followers. The quest for autonomy by Tibetans is based on promoting their conditions relating to social, cultural, economic, and political life, as well as promoting both human rights and democracy.

Progress has been made in negotiations. The Dalai Lama official representatives pursue genuine autonomy while PRC official representatives pursue sovereignty over Tibet. As such, PRC lacks the political will to reconcile these issues relating to Tibetans. Notably, when Tibetan leaders shifted from sovereign independence to seeking genuine autonomy, the Chinese official responded by insisting on their current national minority policies, thus taking comfort in actual of control of Tibet by China as a fait accompli as well achieved by the state. According to Davis, “these policies incorporate a form of top-down Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule that makes genuine local autonomy difficult to achieve.”²² Based on government, the assertion of sovereignty on Tibet constitutes a matter of important national interest and as such Beijing shows little concern for Tibetans during negotiations.

Conclusion

Since CCP came into power in 1949, it has maintained an authoritarian rule in China. The degree of authoritarian government in China has been demonstrated by numerous acts and events such as Tiananmen Square protests, the Tibet autonomy quest, internet censorship, the control of social organizations, and oppression of rights protection movements. Notably, the Chinese regime does not advocate for a free society. As such, the state controls, coordinates, organizes, and supervises social organizations to prevent or reduce the emergence of political ideologies that are against CCP ideologies. About the internet, the Chinese government censors, manipulates and monitors online conversations to ensure that no individual can organize a feasible opposition movement.

In a different vein, the Chinese government does not accommodate demonstrations. The Tiananmen Square incident of 1989 is an example of how Chinese reacts to demonstrations. Notably, the number of indictment and arrests continues to increase as the government persists in taking into custody and charging individuals on political, ethnic, and religious dissent grounds. Finally, the Chinese government continues to demonstrate its unwillingness to negotiate with Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader. Although Tibetans’ quest for autonomy is based on social, cultural, economic, and political life as well as human rights and democracy, the Chinese government only cares about its sovereignty over Tibet.

Bibliography

Davis, Michael C. “The Quest for Self-Rule in Tibet.” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 4 (2007): 157-171.

Gilley, Bruce. “Democracy and China.” In China’s Democratic Future: How it Will Happen and Where it Will Lead, 3-27. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

MacKinnon, Rebecca. “China’s “Networked Authoritarianism.”” Journal of Democracy 22, no. 2 (2011): 32-46.

Nathan, Andrew J. “China since Tiananmen: Authoritarian Impermanence.” Journal of Democracy 20, no. 3 (2009): 37-40.

Pye, Lucian W. “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism.” The American Political Science Review 84, no. 1 (1990): 3-19.

Saich, Tony. “Negotiating the State: The Development of Social Organizations in China.” The China Quarterly, no. 161 (2000): 124-141.

Footnotes

1. Lucian W. Pye, “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism,” The American Political Science Review 84, no. 1 (1990): 5.
2. Bruce Gilley, “Democracy and China,” in China’s Democratic Future: How it Will Happen and Where it Will Lead, 3-14 (New York, NY: Columbia University Press), 4.
3. Andrew J. Nathan, “China since Tiananmen: Authoritarian impermanence,” Journal of Democracy 20, no. 3 (2009): 38.
4. Ibid., 39.
5. Ibid.
6. Pye, “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism,” 5.
7. Ibid., 10.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., 11.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Tony Saich “Negotiating the State: The Development of Social Organizations in China,” The China Quarterly, no. 161 (2000): 126.
14. Ibid., 127.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Rebecca MacKinnon, “China’s “Networked Authoritarianism,”” Journal of Democracy 22, no. 2 (2011): 37.
19. Ibid., 33.
20. Ibid.
21. Michael C. Davis, “The Quest for Self-Rule in Tibet,” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 4 (2007): 157.
22. Ibid., 158.

Introduction

Authoritarianism is a term that stands to denote “a political doctrine advocating the principle of absolute rule” (Silva, 1996). It is a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state. Limited political pluralism is sometimes permitted in such regimes, herein lays the main distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, though this opposition is limited and often not legitimate. The second distinction is the lack of a defined ideology found in authoritarian regimes.

In the years 1958 – 1975 Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, and Chile all experienced authoritarian coups. Between 1974 and 1989 these regimes were replaced with largely democratic governments (referred to as the third wave of democratization (Handelman, 2004).

Main body

The authoritarian military regimes in Latin America were exceptionally brutal and suppressed civil society and political movements. The constant fear of an increasing opposition of both armed guerrilla movements and leftist political parties led to attempts at restructuring the countries. Personalist dictators headed the regimes; however, the peculiar feature of these regimes was the reliance on military institutions for maintaining control over society instead of sole reliance on the personal power of an individual dictator. In Chile, General Pinochet only emerged as leader months after the bloody coup took place.

The regimes characterized (in Latin America) as bureaucratic-authoritarian appear to be fundamentally restrictive of political and economic institutions resulting in the increasing polarisation between the rich and the poor. The political and economic reforms that were implemented during the bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes did not find support with the citizens and, therefore, needed to be imposed through undemocratic means.

Theories that have attempted to explain the rise of authoritarian rule both the world over specifically in Latin America will now be examined. Firstly, the corporatist theory maintains that the style of Iberian colonization is held accountable for the high presence of authoritarianism in Latin America. The argument states that not only was the culture of the Hispanic colonizers inherently authoritarian but also the native cultures of Latin America were themselves very hierarchical, helping to facilitate this form of rule. This outdated, racist theory has been largely rejected. Critics note the case of Chile here, the fact that Chile experienced one of the longest surviving authoritarian regimes despite not being heavily influenced by Spanish colonization and previously enjoyed a long period of democratic rule.

George Phillip remarks that a populous can come to prefer authoritarian leadership when they have already experienced rising inequality under the democratic rule and become disillusioned. Reformation of political institutions is one method some writers claim would strengthen democratic systems. However, opponents assert that economic growth is essential in preventing a return to authoritarianism and that socio-economic crises create larger threats to stability.

The concept of bureaucratic authoritarianism was introduced by the Argentine political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell to refer to institutional dictatorships that resorted to coercion as a response to what they considered to be threats to the capitalist system. O’Donnell argued that “the appropriate way to oppose them was through an unconditional commitment to democracy.” However, the position exists that sometimes democratic governments are not authoritarian enough to defend positive social reforms (Petras et al, 1988). Salvador Allende’s (1970–1973) government in Chile and the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s demonstrate that the ruling classes do not give up their elite privileges without a struggle.

As the bourgeoisie is not committed to democratic principles, Petras et al argue, it uses any possible tactics to undermine social reforms that require democratic mechanisms (Petras et al, 1988). It comes out that social reformers face the choice either to defend democratic processes utilizing authoritarian tactics or to fail.

Thus, the fall of Allende’s regime in Chile may be considered as a fall of a democratic government to authoritarian power. His reforms resulted in the nationalization of U.S.-owned industries; this made it possible for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to contribute to the military coup on 11 September 1973 after which Allende’s government fell.

Augusto Pinochet’s regime that followed the military coup was the savage military dictatorship that suppressed all democratic principles that existed in the country throughout its history. No political opposition was possible, individual rights were completely ignored.

Although Chile was once one of Latin America’s most established democracies, under the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet it suffered right-wing, military repression, with two to three thousand people executed by government security forces, and many more imprisoned, tortured, or exiled (Skidmore, 2005). On 11 September 1973, less than three weeks after being made head of the junta militia, General Pinochet played a leading role in a CIA-sponsored coup. The attack, led by the armed forces, culminated in the bombing of the presidential palace and the death of President Allende. Pinochet’s grip on power quickly hardened. By mid-1974, he was declared Supreme Head of the Nation, and by December, President. His leadership was characterized by tortures, disappearances, assassinations, and mass executions. The junta militia abolished civil liberties, dissolved the national congress, banned union activities, prohibited strikes and collective bargaining, and erased the agrarian administration as well as economic reforms. Centre left-wing opposition (most notably labor unions and universities) were particularly hard hit as were many of the ‘Poblacion’s (low-income, urban shanty towns) in and around the nation’s capital.

Going by Karen L. Remmer we will analyze the distinctive characteristics of Chilean authoritarianism:

• The idea of impersonal control by military institutions is basic to the bureaucratic-authoritarian model. In Chile, this was just the case, as the power was concentrated in the hands of a single individual through rule by the military as an institution. Generalissimo of the Chilean armed forces, Pinochet was unrivaled by any of his recent counterparts in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.
• Chilean authoritarianism existed contrary to many obstacles and pressures: a national tradition of constitutional democracy, an established political landscape of parties and interest groups, widespread internal opposition, mass protests, and economic crisis. Chilean authoritarianism appeared to be a rather durable process. Pinochet was the only South American military officer who has ruled for such a long period of time (nearly a decade and a half) in the postwar era (with the exception of General Alfredo Stroessner).
• Chilean authoritarianism was characterized by its determined pursuit of orthodox economic policies. The commitment to monetary orthodoxy and market-oriented development policies had been implemented into reality rapidly and consistently.
• Chile also had the strongest tradition of state intervention in the economy if compared to other southern cone countries (Remmer, 1989).

To analyze the reasons that made bureaucratic-authoritarian regime come into being possible in Chile we will examine Chile’s pre-1973 conditions through three perspectives:

1. Import substitution industrialization strategy;
2. The threat to capitalist order;
3. Activation of the popular sector.

In 1830-1960 the import tax for final consumer goods encouraged imports of producer goods but not consumer goods. Consequently, during 1870-1907 the share of consumer goods in Chile fell down significantly. As relatively smooth import-substitution industrialization took place, it gave rise to an entrenched industrial bourgeoisie that was dependent on high levels of protection from trade (Silva, 1996).

Though in general, the import-substitution industrialization-oriented tariff structure remained until 1960, by 1937 the early phase of industrialization which concentrated on consumer goods had reached its limit; it could not be achieved despite continued government effort.

The gradual stagnation in the growth of industrial employment (after 1950 new employment opportunities came only from non-industrial sectors) indicated a halt in industrialization. The increased domestic production of consumer goods led to significant growth in the imports of capital goods. More foreign exchange was spent on imports of capital goods that led to the deterioration of the balance of payment conditions. The foreign debt of Chile increased (Ma, 2002).

2. In 1964, Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party was elected president of Chile. His policy contained some elements threatening the existing capitalist order. He recommended a set of constitutional amendments on property rights to establish a legal basis for the agrarian reform. Also, he recommended a tax reform to extract more from the rich, an equalization of wages, and a liberalization of labor laws. All these threatened the upper bourgeoisie as the reforms contradicted the basics of capitalist private property rights.

The reform program failed because it faced a crisis caused by strong inflation. Frei’s government responded by a contractionary budget, a slowdown of monetary expansion, and a change in the structure of public investment that resulted in a significant fall in production and unemployment rise.

In 1970, Frei lost the presidential election, and Salvador Allende we talked about above came to power. For the national bourgeoisie, his rise to power meant the downfall of the capitalist order in the country and they organized a series of strikes that almost paralyzed Chile. The citizens gradually lost their commitment to democracy. In the military it was believed that the armed forces should be subordinated to the constitution and civilians are able to maintain social order. As a result, the military forces disregarded the constitution and became active participants in political actions. The military coup of 1973 brought Pinochet’s military government to power, replacing Allende’s social one (Ma, 2002).

3. Chile’s working class first appeared in the second half of the 19^th century. Mostly, the workers were from the copper, coal, and silver mining industries. Until 1880 workers’ riots were sporadic and unorganized. The situation changed when the number of workers engaged in the nitrate mining industry increased significantly during 1880-1890. A high concentration of workers in one industry contributed to the organization of the working class. Since 1890 mass strikes and demonstrations gradually became more organized. In 1912 the Socialist Working Party was formed enabling Chile’s working class to enter the political arena.

At the same time, Chile’s working class became more and more active. In the 1850s the growing urban classes and newly appeared mining capitalists worked out a set of demands that were to be met in terms of liberal reforms. The demands included constitutional reform, administrative decentralization, and more democratic suffrage. As a result of this movement the Radical Party was formed and it soon became one of the leading forces of the middle classes in the political arena.

In the mid-1930s the threat of a growing Fascist movement in the country enhanced the formation of the Popular Front alliance among the working and the middle classes. In 1938 the Popular Front won the presidential election. The Popular Front increased the government’s role in the economy through expanding state investment, protection of domestic industries, and social welfare that was willingly supported by the working and middle classes (Ma, 2002).

As far as the problem of the rise of bureaucratic authoritarianism in Latin America is concerned, the role of the US government is especially important. Instead of fostering the democratic principles in the countries of Latin America, the American government supported authoritarian regimes “that promised stability, anticommunism, and economic trade and investment opportunities.” (Schmitz, 1999).

Oscar (1984) argues that the fact that Pinochet supported capitalistic ideologies which were advocated by the United States also encouraged the United States to support him. The US fought the Marxist and socialistic ideologies of the Soviet Union which were firmly embraced by Pinochet’s predecessors. In short, the USA supported Pinochet because they realized the benefits that the support of the capitalistic ideology adopted by Chile could bring. Authoritarian leadership was considered by the US government as the necessary tool to maintain order, prevent social and political chaos and succeed in policies aimed at economic modernization. But “democracy emerged and economies grew in Latin America in spite of, rather than because of, U.S. policies.” (Bureaucratic Authoritarianism).

Pinochet’s regime was felled during the 1988 elections. The Constitution was amended to ease provisions for future amendments to it, to create more seats in the senate, to diminish the role of the National Security Council, and equalize the number of civilian and military members in the government from all classes in the country (Skidmore, 2005). Pinochet’s defeat in the polls signified the dead-end of the authoritarian government in Chile. Later, the constitution was amended so that any possible loopholes that could have led to authoritarianism were removed.

According to Skidmore (2005), the church which at first expressed its gratitude to the junta armed forces for saving the country from the danger of a “Marxist dictatorship,” became increasingly critical of the regime’s social and economic policies. The change in the views of the representatives of the church was enhanced by the fact that clergies were dismissed for criticizing the government and were forced to flee into exile. The representatives of the church realized that the authoritarian regime was decaying and took a stance against its leader.

The fall of this authoritarian government was also enhanced by the great Economic crisis of 1982. The increase in foreign debt signified a budgetary deficit, the country could not meet its budgetary allocations. The financial analyses conducted proved that that situation was a result of the economic exploitations of the working class. The latter started to silently revolt against the capitalistic ideologies of Pinochet until the giant was felled by the power of the ballot.

The loss of belief in the government that was common throughout the nation also played a role in the fall of the regime. The inequalities in development ranged from infrastructural to socio-political disparities. Because of regional and technical imbalance, people lost faith in the government. The huge wage differentials between the members of different classes did not contribute to the government’s popularity as well. The bourgeoisie was earning very high wages while the representatives of the middle and the lower class earned very low wages. This resulted in poor income distribution with the effect that living standards declined for the majority. With the middle working and the lower class being poorly paid and doing menial jobs, there arose serious income disparities where the lower class were unable to afford essential commodities of life. People lost faith in the government making them vote it out.

Another reason for citizens’ dissatisfaction with the current government was the education issue. Educational opportunities were a reserve for the middle working class and royal class. The lower class got informal education through apprenticeship just sufficient to make them serve their masters. These people realized the fact that they could not be allowed to open up their minds through getting the appropriate education. On the other hand, the middle working class was also restricted in getting an education as they were not allowed to acquire professional skills since they were a reserve for the royals only.

Health deterioration in the whole country was another major cause of the disbandment of the popular authoritarian form of government in Chile. The problem of equality in health service remained a rather burning one. The royals had life health insurance covers and they were provided with the best medical treatment. The others lacked medical insurance and did not even have access to the basic health care system.

Meanwhile, the trials concerning human rights violations during the dictatorship continued. Pinochet was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in August 2000 by the Supreme Court and indicted by Judge Juan Guzman Tapia (Skidmore, 2005). With this increased human rights activism and welfare reform, social democracy was restored. Cases were heard in court concerning people who had been imprisoned without trial, those who had been exiled were recalled and inquiries about those who were exterminated were made.

Though some claim that there is still an authoritarian tradition that threatens democratic structures (Payne, 2000), authoritarianism has gradually become the vestige of the past. Still, the issue of democratic institutions remains a burning one in the societies of Latin America, as uncivil movements that Payne speaks of do not lose their ability to shape the discourse and practices of democratic institutions.

Conclusion

Everything mentioned above considered we conclude that authoritarian rule does not assume any democratic freedoms and is destined to fail one day. The drastic effects that an authoritarian government might have were demonstrated by the example of Augusto Pinochet’s military regime in Chile. The research has shown that the establishment of the authoritarian government was possible because of the import substitution industrialization strategy, activation of the popular sector, rising threat to the capitalist order, and the United States’ support of the regime. The reasons of the fall of the authoritarian regime in the Chile are also considered in the paper, with the emphasis made on the citizens’ dissatisfaction with the current government. Chile’s example has shown that the government that neglects the fundamentals of democracy will definitely fall one day with no chances to restore one’s power.

Works Cited

‘Bureaucratic Authoritarianism’ [Online]. Web.

Handelman, H 2004, ‘The Security and Insecurities of Democracy in the Third World’, Global Studies Perspectives: Occasional Paper Series of the Center for International Education, 12:1.

Ma Shu-Yun 2002, ‘The Rise and Fall of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in Chile’, Copyright, ABCSO Publishing, p.51-65.

O’Donnell, G A 1999. Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Oscar, O 1984. Public politics and political regimes in Latin America. Washington, D.C. Wilson center.

Petras, J F., and Fitzgerald F T 1988, ‘Authoritarianism and Democracy in the Transition to Socialism’, Latin American Perspectives, winter 1988, p.93.

Phillp, G 2003. Democracy in Latin America; Surviving Conflict and Crisis? Blackwell.

Remmer, K L 1989.‘The Politics of Military Rule in Chile, 1973-1987’, Comparative Politics, 21:2, Jan.

Schmitz, D F 1999. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921–1965. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Silva, E 1996. The State and Capitalism in Chile: Business Elites, Technocrats and Market Economics. Westview Press.

Skidmore, T 2005. Modern Latin America. Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Psychologists have established that parenting has significant influence on the proper growth and development of children. Therefore, the type of parenting style applied has certain effects on child growth as well as the type and quality of parent-child relationship (Cherry par. 1). Developmental psychologists have found out that in certain cases, the type of parenting style used can affect the mood and temperament of children in adolescence and adulthood.

The outcome of any parenting approach is primarily determined by what parents feel and believe their children need from them. Authoritarian and permissive styles are parenting approaches that are commonly used and that have varied effects on children because they approach the concepts of discipline, warmth, nurturance, and communication differently (Cherry par. 3). Moreover, they involve the embracement of different attitudes regarding child-parent relationships.

Authoritarian versus permissive parenting

Authoritarian parenting involves the creation of strict rules that children are expected to follow without any opposition (Mgbemere and Telles par. 5). In case children object or decline to follow rules, they are disciplined for disobedience. In contrast, permissive parenting has very few demands, and as a result, allows children to be themselves and practice their creativity and imagination with regard to controlling their actions and behaviors (Joseph and John 17). Unlike authoritarian parents, permissive parents do not create any rules for their children to follow.

An important area of contrast between the two styles is the varying levels of maturity and control expected from children. In authoritarian parenting, there are high expectations of control and maturity from children. Parents expect the rules they create to be followed without exception or objection (Cherry par. 5). Children are punished for failing to follow rules because they are expected to exhibit high levels of maturity and control.

In contrast, permissive parents have relatively low expectations with regard to maturity and control. They believe that children are immature, and therefore, expecting them to behave maturely is unrealistic. In that regard, they allow children to regulate themselves and determine their actions and behaviors. Permissive parents are more responsive to their children than they are demanding while authoritarian parents are more demanding than they are responsive (Williams et al. 1063).

Authoritarian parenting is more concerned with strict observance of the rules they create than guiding children and correcting them when they make mistakes (Mgbemere and Telles par. 7). In addition, it is strict and traditional. On the contrary, permissive parenting is lenient because of the belief that the immaturity exhibited by children is a critical component of learning. Therefore, children should be given freedom to be themselves, make mistakes, and learn.

Both styles differ significantly with regard to the type of communication between parents and children. In authoritarian parenting, there is limited communication because children are expected to follow rules without any exception. There is no room for negotiation and communication is usually replaced with punishment (Mgbemere and Telles par. 7). Parents rarely talk to their children because high expectations of mature behavior eradicate the need for communication.

They assume that children are adults who are aware of the consequences of their actions and behaviors. In contrast, permissive parents regularly talk with their children because they view them as immature beings that need guidance and nurturing (Mgbemere and Telles par. 9). The relationships between parents and children are based on friendship and need for direction. Permissive parents avoid confrontations and usually take the status of friends and not parents. Poor communication between authoritarian parents and their children means that feedback regarding decisions and actions is withheld (Mgbemere and Telles par. 8).

Authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ in the type of disciplinary strategies applied. Authoritarian parents prefer to use strategies such as criticizing, shouting, and corporal punishment (Williams et al. 1064).

These strategies are used because of the belief that parents’ main role is to help children survive and thrive in a harsh society that is characterized by negative responses such as aggressiveness and criticism. Parenting approaches that regularly expose children to negative responses are used with the aim of preparing them for adulthood (Marsiglia et al. 76). In contrast, permissive parents prefer to use strategies such as providing constructive feedback and counseling (Mgbemere and Telles par. 10). They do not expect a lot from their children because they view them as immature and prone to impulsive behaviors.

Long-term effects of parenting styles on children

One of the long-term effects of authoritarian parenting is the lack of social competence (Gross par. 3). Parents bar their children from exploring and understanding the world on their own by telling them what to do and how to behave in different situations thus impeding their optimal social growth and development. As a result, they experience problems with confidence and self-esteem (Joseph and John 19).

In contrast, children who grow under permissive parenting possess strong social skills because they get the opportunity to explore the world, form friendships, and learn how to interact and communicate effectively without parental restraint (Gross par. 7). Depression and feelings of bitterness, self-loathing, and anger are common among children brought up by authoritarian parents (Marsiglia et al. 81). Despite its negative effects, authoritarian parenting has positive influences. For example, psychologists have come to a consensus that it instills qualities such as obedience, respect for authority, accountability, and proficiency.

On the contrary, children who grow under permissive parenting are generally unhappy, unable to regulate their actions, and experience problems with authority figures (Gross par. 5). In addition, they show poor academic performance. On the other hand, permissive parenting leads to unaccountability and irresponsibility among children. The risk of engaging in risky behaviors such as drug abuse and heavy drinking are higher in children of permissive parents than in children of authoritarian parents (Gross par. 8).

Personal opinion

I think it is important to incorporate concepts from both authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. It is wrong to alter the optimal growth and development of children by subjecting them to strict rules and regulations. On the other hand, parents should not give children total freedom to do as they wish, oblivious of the consequences of their decisions and behaviors. The best parenting approach combines both styles and creates balance that allows children to grow optimally.

For instance, parents need to direct and guide their children in a nurturing and caring way instead of creating rules for them to follow. They need to provide feedback and use constructive disciplinary strategies. I believe that the parenting style adopted has significant influence on the attitudes and behaviors that children embrace. Effective parenting treats children in a caring and loving way and at the same time instills a certain level of discipline. Children need to be guided, not by creating strict rules for them to follow, but by offering guidance that empowers them to make the right decisions and correct their mistakes.

It is also important for parents to be emotionally supportive and involved in the lives of their children. It is critical for them to offer lessons on how to process and express emotions in a positive way that does not impinge on other people’s rights. For example, they need to teach their children how to address feelings of anger, frustration, and disappointment effectively. I believe that effective parenting treats children as human beings who are undergoing the long and complex process of development. In that regard, it is unrealistic for parents to have high behavioral, maturity, and self-control expectations. Children acquire qualities such as kindness, accountability, responsibility and self-control by socializing with their peers and other people.

Conclusion

Different parenting styles have varied outcomes that determine the level of competence and self-esteem that children possess. Authoritarian and permissive styles have both positive and negative effects. However, the best parenting incorporates concepts from both approaches by applying their positive aspects. Before choosing a style to adopt, parents should first evaluate its long-term effects and how it will shape their children.

The most effective way of parenting ensures that children get the freedom and support they need to grow optimally in all dimensions of human development. It is unethical to stifle the growth of children by subjecting them to strict parental control and manipulation through the use of rules. It is important for parents to understand that their parenting styles influence the behaviors and attitudes of their children in significant ways.

Works Cited

Cherry, Kendra. The Four Styles of Parenting. 2016. Web.

Gross, Gail. How different parenting Styles Affect Children. 2015. Web.

Joseph, Mary Venus, and Jilly John. “Impact of Parenting Styles on Child Development.” Global Academic Society Journal 1.2 (2008), 16-25. Print.

Marsiglia, Cheryl, Jeffrey Walczyk, Walter Buboltz, and Diana Griffith-Ross. “Impact of Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on Emerging Adult’s Psychosocial Success.” Journal of Education and Human development 1.1 (2007): 76-86. Print.

Mgbemere, Bianca, and Rachel Telles. Types of Parenting Styles and How to Identify Yours. 2013. Web.

Williams, Lella, Kathryn Degnan, Koraly Perez-Edgar, Heather Henderson, Kenneth Rubin, Daniel Pine, Laurence Steinberg, and Nathan Fox. “Impact of Behavioral Inhibition and Parenting Style on Internalizing and Externalizing Problems from Early Childhood through Adolescence.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 37.8 (2009): 1063-1075. NCBI. Web.

Human resources’ management is a complex process that requires not only strong leadership and organizational skills but a proper strategy development and choosing the right management model as well. Normally, the models of management can be of the three types: authoritarian, legalistic, and humanistic. Different epochs were marked by using different approaches to work arrangement. Some of them are widely criticized these days, while others are regarded as the only appropriate to put into general practice. In my personal view, there is no such concept as an ideal management model. For a healthcare organization to raise its performance and the working productivity of an entire staff a mixture of models is needed. The combination of various approaches will allow one to praise employees when it is required and use strict measures whenever a discipline break-down is tracked.

As to the mentioned approaches to employee relations management, the first to emerge was an authoritarian model. It is known to take origins from the times of ancient civilizations when slavery was an accepted norm. As derived from the name, authoritarian model involved all the harsh measures to force workers to execute their master’s will. As Fallon and McConnell (2013) point out, “a fundamental motivating force in authoritarian management is fear” (p. 385). For long centuries this model of work organization remained the only available and was used throughout the developed countries. The introduction of legislation, however, has changed the situation entirely. The legalistic movement began in the 1930s and led to changes in the wage-and-hour laws. After the adoption of the Civil Rights Act in 1963, the policy regarding human resource management significantly improved. None of managers or employees wished to violate the act’s terms. The further model evolution has led to the occurrence of humanistic approach, in which a satisfied worker was viewed as a motivated and a high-performance employee, whose requirements were always given priority.

A brief description of the key concepts of staff management helps one to clearly understand what principles are put into the structure of each particular model. Eventually, choosing either authoritarian or humanistic model cannot be viewed as an objective approach to the problem resolving. As the researchers point out, a combination of methods “can be used to facilitate and improve employee engagement and result in positive outcomes that will help organizations achieve a competitive advantage” (Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey, & Saks, 2015, p. 7). Thus, an authoritarian approach can assist in forming a strict working discipline and arranging a continuous work of all of the healthcare units. A developed penalty system can serve as a formidable background for the model implementation. However, one cannot neglect a widely used humanistic concept when it comes to the management model development. Marginson (2015) stresses that the landscape of applied management strategies has changed markedly over the past half century. This fact leads to the conclusion that appealing to the currently used appraisal systems can be regarded as an effective way of building proper relationships with employees.

In closing, one needs to highlight that the management models that are viewed as outlived today still contain enough potential to be used in modern practices. The combination of various strategic principles can assist in developing an approach that can totally correspond to the needs of any healthcare organization. Usage of the most efficient principles of the three available models allows one to create a system that boasts the advantages of all of the methods and contains no noticeable shortcomings.

References

Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7-35.

Fallon Jr, L. F., & McConnell, C. R. (2013). Human resource management in health care. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Marginson, P. (2015). The changing nature of collective employment relations. Employee Relations, 37(6), 645-657.